Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION (SERVICES' LAND REQUIREMENTS)

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a Petition which has been addressed to this House and signed by over 100,000 ramblers, youth-hostellers, cyclists, and lovers of the countryside. The Petitioners view with alarm the extensive demands of the Service Departments for training areas, and the threatened acquisition of much of the wildest and unspoiled parts of the country. The signatories of this Petition have, I know, the support of a great number of other people throughout this country, and their prayer, which I now present, is as follows:

(1) That there shall be appointed a Select Committee to review the claims of the Service Departments and to reconcile them with other claims on land use.
(2) That no Service Department shall be allowed to acquire land in a National Park, or Conservation Area, recommended by the Hobhouse Report.
(3) That the demands of the Service Departments shall be reduced to a minimum and that they shall be co-ordinated so that where possible two or more Departments may use the same area for their respective purposes.
(4) That the Defence Acts of 1842 and 1854 shall be repealed as out of date and not conforming with the modern machinery of government.
(5) In any case where it is proposed to requisition land or retain land requisitioned or otherwise acquired during the war emergency there shall be a local inquiry by an impartial tribunal at which all interests shall be heard.

I very much hope that the House, and in particular my right hon. Friends the Minister of Defence and the Secretaries of State in charge of the Service Departments, will give this Petition their most sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman finished up in the correct way, which is:

"and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."

Petition to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Materials, Chipping Norton

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make available for local purchase by auction or otherwise the plywood, wooden boxes, corrugated iron, asbestos roofing, canvas curtains, petrol pumps and storage tanks at Chipping Norton aerodrome.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): This airfield is used as an Air Ministry storage depot, and the materials in question are not surplus. They are part of my Department's working stock of packing and building materials and equipment.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the allegations that huge quantities of these things have, in fact, been destroyed, will the Secretary of State make inquiries and see that any such surpluses are made available rather than that they should be burned?

Mr. Henderson: Following the question which the hon. Gentleman addressed to me three weeks ago I did initiate inquiries into the suggestions that were made, and it has been reported to me that there is no foundation for any suggestion that materials are being burnt improperly or being allowed to deteriorate.

Horticultural Advisers

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many experienced horticultural officers are employed by his Ministry for food production and other duties for the whole of Great Britain including Air Ministry, London, Northern Ireland, Germany, the Middle East and the Far East; and what are the terms of their employment.

Mr. A. Henderson: There are five posts of horticultural adviser, of which one is vacant at the moment, for stations in the United Kingdom and Germany. Elsewhere overseas, advice is obtained locally. The senior horticultural adviser is paid on a scale rising from £600 to £800 a year, and the others on a scale of £500 to £600 a year.

Mr. Gammans: In view of the excellent production which has been obtained by reason of these officers, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the terms offered are sufficiently good to attract the right type of man?

Mr. Henderson: The question of remuneration is under examination at the present moment.

Requisitioned Land, Langham (Release)

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Air on what date his Department decided to relinquish 17½ acres of land taken over from the Essex War Agricultural Committee in 1942 for incorporation in Boxted Aerodrome, Langham; when this relinquishment was formerly notified to the Ministry of Agriculture; and why delay took place, in view of the urgent need to get this land into cultivation for food production.

Mr. A. Henderson: My Department decided to relinquish part of this land late in August of this year, and the other part in September, and the Ministry of Agriculture were notified in the first half of October. This land is not, however, available for cultivation, because it has buildings on it which are being transferred to other Government Departments for housing purposes. I should like to express my regret that one of the owners of the land was led to believe that it would shortly be returned to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Corporations (Services)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many of the B.E.A. services have been speeded up since 1st August; and what percentage increase in petrol consumption has resulted.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The answer to the first part of the Question is "Nine," and to the last part, "None, Sir."

Mr. Shepherd: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say how he gets an increase of speed without at the same time getting increased petrol consumption?

Mr. Lindgren: By the change of aircraft.

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will give a list of the services operated by the three Corporations, which when working to a full capacity, must of necessity involve a loss.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. It would not be in the public interest to give this information.

Mr. Shepherd: If, as I believe to be the case, there are runs which are losing as much as £8,000 on a return trip, is it not time the public knew the true facts about British civil aviation?

Mr. Lindgren: To take individual routes out of the network of services provided would be unfair and would not give the correct picture.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is it not a fact that certain aircraft are not being operated on their full permissible pay load and that as a result losses amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds are taking place?

Mr. Lindgren: Permissible pay loads may not always coincide with the operator's view in regard to safety, and safety is the first factor.

Mr. Erroll: If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give the losses for individual lines, can he give the gross figure of loss?

Mr. Lindgren: The House will have that information when the accounts of the three Corporations are published shortly.

Mr. Keeling: When the hon. Gentleman says that it would not be in the public interest to give the information, does he mean that it would be contrary to the public interest to give it, and, if so, would he say why?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. One is prepared to give information which one's competitors are prepared to give. Discussions are


going on now through the International Civil Aviation Organisation to get all airline operators to agree to give statistics which will enable the public to judge for themselves; such agreed statistics will not place one operator at a disadvantage with another in regard to the information provided.

Mr. J. H. Hare: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why B.O.A.C. have been failing to deliver passengers and mail in Teheran according to schedule.

Mr. Lindgren: Because of restrictions on transit imposed by certain Governments arising out of the cholera epidemic in Egypt and a report of plague in Persia.

Mr. Hare: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Dutch, Swedish and French airlines have been able to keep a regular service going merely because they took the trouble to avoid Baghdad and fly straight from Lydda to Teheran? Is it not a pity for the sake of British prestige that we are not capable of making some alternative arrangements?

Mr. Lindgren: The flight stages and the pay load to be carried over them must be left to the individual operator to determine.

Sir W. Wakefield: It is not a fact that private charter companies are keeping up a very accurate schedule for their flights in this area.

Mr. Lindgren: It is not a question of accurate flights but of not being able to operate into a particular airport because of restrictions on account of health regulations. The first supplementary question suggested that certain points could have been reached by over-flying other points, but they were not over-flown in this case.

Prestwick (Runways)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the position of the construction of the third runway at Prestwick Airport; and whether he is now satisfied that development of the two existing runways will meet all reasonable needs.

Mr. Lindgren: In the present economic circumstances this work has necessarily

been deferred. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir, for the time being."

Colonel Hutchison: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that these runways will be brought into a condition which will allow Prestwick to continue to fulfil the role of a first-class international airport, which the traffic during the past summer has abundantly justified?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, and its meteorological conditions will assist in the matter.

B.O.A.C. Staff, Augusta

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the present position concerning an allocation of films for the B.O.A.C. staff at Augusta, Sicily; and whether Augusta will remain a B.O.A.C. port of call after 31st December, 1947.

Mr. Lindgren: The first part of the Question is a matter of management and is the responsibility of the Corporation. Future staging post facilities in Italy for B.O.A.C. flying boat services are under discussion with the Italian authorities.

Mr. Teeling: With regard to the first part of the Question, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the company is hoping, and has been hoping, to get these films and that nothing has been done about it? Is it not within the purview of the Minister to do something about it? With regard to the second part of the Question, will he definitely answer me whether or not Augusta has been turned down by the Italians after 31st December, which is very near now?

Mr. Lindgren: As to the first part of the Question, it is a matter of staff welfare in which the operator and the staff are desirous of providing facilities for persons in isolated spots. Any and every facility we as a Ministry and His Majesty's Government can properly give to the operator, we will give. As to the second part of the Question, Augusta is being operated under an interim agreement until a commercial agreement is negotiated. Those negotiations are at present being carried on, and we hope they will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the name "Augusta, Sicily" is the name of a "Tory brat?"

Minister's Journey (Chartered Aircraft)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why the empty seats in sectors other than Karachi to Singapore were not filled in the aircraft specially chartered to carry the Minister of Civil Aviation on his recent visit to Australia and the Far East in view of the waiting list of passengers, and the saving in cost of this trip to the taxpayer.

Mr. Lindgren: Because no space was available.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is it not a fact that on certain sections of short haul, seats were available and were not available only for the long haul between Karachi and Singapore? Why were those empty seats over the short section not used?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's information is wrong. A Lancastrian fitted out for the Australian route carries six persons, with sleeping bunks, and that is the passenger pay load throughout the route.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the Minister say that the aircraft was used for sleeping purposes and that the normal stops for sleeping were not made?

Mr. Lindgren: The answer is a combination of both. Stops were made and the aircraft was also used for sleeping purposes.

Feltham Sand and Gravel Company (Contract)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why the contract recently given by his Department to the Feltham Sand and Gravel Company Limited was not put out to public tender.

Mr. Lindgren: The company is being granted a lease of gravel-bearing land at Heston owned by the Ministry of Civil Aviation in return for the sale by the company to the Ministry of a gravel bearing site at Stanwell. The company had already received planning consent to excavate there but the site is now required for housing London Airport employees.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the business relationship in another connec-

tion between the chairman of this company and the Parliamentary Secretary's brother, would it not hare been wiser, in order to prevent disquieting rumours getting about, to put this contract out to public tender?

Mr. Lindgren: I was completely unaware that there was any connection in any shape or form and I should very much doubt it, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. My brother is an accountant but what he is associated with, goodness alone knows.

Tudor Aircraft

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in what respects the Tudor Aircraft has proved unsatisfactory for the North Atlantic; and what are the observations of the Courtney Committee of investigation on this matter.

Mr. Lindgren: An interim report by the Courtney Committee has been received, is under consideration by His Majesty's Government and until that consideration has been completed no useful purpose would be served by making any statement.

Mr. Hale: The Parliamentary Secretary made a statement on this matter about a fortnight ago and it was in order to elucidate the statement he then made that I asked this Question. What are the grounds for suggesting that this aircraft will not fly the North Atlantic, and is it true that the Courtney Committee, as announced on the wireless on Tuesday, has said that it could fly the North Atlantic?

Mr. Lindgren: In so far as the B.B.C. announcement is concerned, the hon. Member will remember that the B.B.C. stated "It is understood." Why the B.B.C. understood that I do not know. My previous statement was in relation to the B.O.A.C. claims that the weight, range and payload of the aircraft made it uneconomic, and any further questions should await the publication of the Report or a statement from the Government.

Mr. George Ward: Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean to say that he had no evidence whatever, other than the assumption of B.O.A.C., for saying that the Tudor had been proved unsatisfactory for the North Atlantic service and that it


would be unwise to permit it to do that service? Had he not already seen the Courtney Report?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. The Courtney Committee had not reported: my answer to the House was on the basis of statements made by the operators and others in association with the aircraft. All the statements stand.

Mr. Beswick: Can we take it for granted that the Courtney Report will be made public, and when may we expect its publication?

Mr. Lindgren: I cannot answer that question. All I can say is that it is under consideration by the Government, and that it is for the Government to make the decision and no doubt announce it to the House.

Sir W. Wakefield: What is the purpose of the Courtney Report?

Mr. Lindgren: To find out the facts.

Sir W. Wakefield: What facts?

Oral Answers to Questions — BALKAN STATES (U.S.S.R. TROOPS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the U.S.S.R. has carried out its undertaking, under the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, to withdraw all troops from Bulgaria by 15th December; and under the Treaties of Peace with Roumania and Hungary, to reduce its forces in those countries by 15th December to the strength necessary to guard the Soviet lines of communications with Austria.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): We are awaiting reports from our Legations in the three countries concerned on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHREIN ISLAND (STATUS)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards any change in the existing status of Bahrein Island in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Bevin: His Highness the Sheikh of Bahrein is recognised as the ruler of an Independent State under the protection of His Majesty's Government and in special

Treaty relations with them. His Majesty's Government see no reason for any change in this status.

Dr. Segal: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the present ruler of Bahrein and his predecessor have pursued a very enlightened and progressive policy in the Island, and that his statement will give wide satisfaction?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Venereal Disease (Medical Examination)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether compulsory arrest of Germans for medical examination in respect of V.D. still continues in the British zone of Germany; how many have been arrested during the past year compared with the previous year; and what percentage have been found to be suffering from this disease.

Mr. Bevin: I have called for a report on the matter referred to in my hon. Friend's Question, and I will communicate with him as soon as possible.

Mr. Sorensen: I take it from that answer that we still have responsibility in that matter, and if the report shows that the present method has proved of little value, will that procedure be reconsidered?

Mr. Bevin: I had better await the report.

Petrol Supplies

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will revise the arrangement in Germany under which British personnel are allowed petrol to cover 500 miles of recreational transport each month.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. Five hundred miles a month is a maximum. I am making inquiries into the working of the scheme, which will, of course, be affected by the recent cut of 25 per cent. imposed on the Control Commission's petrol consumption.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Is it not because there is no other means of transport in Germany that the Control Commission has found it necessary to allocate petrol to people so that they may communicate with each other?

Mr. Bevin: I have had strong representations made to me on this question of petrol consumption and communications, and I am looking into the whole matter.

Mr. Tolley: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the whole of this petrol is used solely for business purposes or for pleasure as well?

Mr. Bevin: Mainly for business purposes. I think it is for business purposes on the way out and for pleasure on the way home.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what accounts for the irregular and inconvenient shortage of petrol coupons in the British zone of Germany, and as some German pumps are unable to honour even those which are available, if he will cause an investigation to be made into the administration of petrol supplies generally.

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the petrol supply for the British occupation authorities in Germany has partially broken down; and what steps are being taken to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. Bevin: There has been no breakdown in petrol supplies in Germany. Authority to issue petrol coupons to nonmilitary users, such as Press correspondents, commercial representatives and welfare organisations was transferred from B.A.O.R. to the Zonal Travel Directorate on 1st November. Coupons held then had to be exchanged for new ones. The demand for new coupons proved unexpectedly large, and a temporary shortage resulted in Berlin. Steps have been taken to remedy the shortage.

Anglo-U.S.A. Agreement

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the United States on the future financing of the bi-zonal area in Germany.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. I am pleased to be able to state that agreement has now been reached and that the Agreement will be signed in Washington later this afternoon. The text is being prepared as a White Paper. I am arranging for advance copies to be placed in the Library of the House at 5 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has taken note of the recent public claim of the United States Secretary of the Army that henceforward America would control the economic and financial policies of the Anglo-American zones of Germany; and whether he will represent to the United States Government that in any plans which may be decided on it is the view of His Majesty's Government that Britain should have an equal say with the United States.

Mr. Bevin: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part of the Question, I would prefer not to anticipate the statement which will be released tonight. I may, however, say that the negotiations are limited to questions of the financing of supplies and the operation and constitution of the Joint Export-Import Agency and the Joint Foreign Exchange Agency.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES (BRITISH EX-SERVICE MEN)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, during the Foreign Ministers' Conference in London, he has represented to Mr. Molotov the concern felt by the continued retention in Russia of the Russian-born wives of British ex-Service men; and what is the result of any such representations by him.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope to the husbands of these women that they will ever see their wives again?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Have the Russian Government ever revealed their motive in retaining these wives.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: "No, Sir," is catching.

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIA (MILITARY STRENGTHS)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present strength, shown separately, of the Bulgarian Army, the militia, the labour


battalions in recepit of any form of military training or under military discipline, and of any other military or semi-military units or organisations in Bulgaia; and whether His Majesty's Government have full details of the training and equipment of all such units and formations.

Mr. Bevin: Our estimates of the present strength of military and semi-military units and organisations in Bulgaria are as follow:
Army.—76, 000.
Frontier guards.—10,000.
Militia (which is a police force).—80,000 to 100,000.
Labour battalions (who receive little serious military training and whose strength fluctuates according to season).—40,000 to 80,000.
The Bulgarian Government were asked last October for details of strengths, training and equipment but have not yet furnished this information.

Major Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures he has given the House make very disquieting comparison with Article 9 of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, which limits the Armies to 55,000, and Articles 10 and 11 which insist that any personnel in excess of this figure should not be in receipt of any military training and should be disbanded by March?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, I quite agree with that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPE (MARSHALL PLAN)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs what steps are being taken to develop cooperative economic action between the 16 European nations which accepted the Marshall Plan.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken, or will be taken, by this country in the direction of proposing to the other 15 nations signatories to the Marshall Plan Report to set up an administrative body to administer the Plan; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bevin: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that everything that might be done is being done in this regard, in view of the stress laid on the Harvard speech, and the opinion which is obviously prevelant in the United States that Europe is rather hanging back in this matter?

Mr. Bevin: I do not agree that Europe is hanging back. Europe is in a very difficult position. It is difficult for Europe to know what steps to take until Congress has taken its decision, but we are moving with great speed and I do not think we can be accused in Europe of being slow in taking advantage of the Harvard speech.

Colonel Hutchison: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it will, in the main, facilitate the Marshall Plan to have some sort of administrative body set up in advance, so that when the Plan is agreed on the other side there will be somebody to function?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, but that depends on how Congress lays down the conditions. We do not know whether Congress will lay down conditions so that, although there is a global allocation, it may have to be bilaterally negotiated, and we cannot anticipate what the final decision of Congress will be. That is the great difficulty which we are seeking to overcome at the present moment.

Mrs. Leah Manning: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the European Committee for Economic Co-operation which already exists is to be used for this purpose?

Mr. Bevin: I do not think so directly in connection with the Marshall aid, because the Economic Commission for Europe covers Europe as a whole, and a large number of the countries in Europe have contracted entirely out and have refused to co-operate in this aid.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Is it true that a majority of the 16 nations were anxious to see a fully-fledged customs union created, and is it also true that the British representative opposed that?

Mr. Bevin: No, it is not true. What we did was to point out that Britain cannot be exclusively a member of a customs union of Europe. As I have explained so many times, the contribution to the


equilibrium of this country from Europe is about 25 per cent., and the great bulk of our trade and commerce is with the Commonwealth and with outside countries. Therefore, our endeavour is to do what we can to assist a European customs union, and at the same time to do what we can to maintain the external trade of this country, in order that our prosperity may be secured.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask the Foreign Secretary if his answers mean that no plan or plans have been made in advance in anticipation of Congress agreeing to grant aid to Europe?

Mr. Bevin: We are like a military organisation—it depends on how the other forces move which plan we bring out.

Mr. Lipson: Then there are plans?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

Following is the answer:

As I stated in the House on 9th December, the Governments which participated in the Paris Conference are not in a position to take steps to set up the joint organisation to review progress in the execution of the European Recovery Programme until the means for carrying out that programme are made available. I should like, however, to assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government, for their part are resolved at the appropriate time to play their full part, in association with the French Government, their co-sponsors of the Paris Conference, in the establishment and operation of such an organisation, which they are convinced will be necessary and which will be an important and responsible factor in the carrying through of the European Recovery Programme. In the meantime, our policy is to participate to the fullest possible extent in the continued joint study of the specific problems to which I shall refer in a moment and also to engage, whenever opportunity offers, in consultations with other countries in an effort to relieve the economic ills of Europe.

2. We also feel that if members of the Committee of European Economic Co-operation are to receive generous assistance from the United States and perhaps other countries in the Western Hemisphere, in order to enable them to regain their economic stability, it is only natural that they should be called upon in return

so to organise themselves that the assistance received is fully and effectively utilised.

3. Meanwhile I would like to take this opportunity of pointing out that close consultation and co-operation between the countries concerned is already taking place on a number of specific subjects closely related to the Paris Report and to the fulfilment of the European Recovery Programme.

(i) The Payments Agreements Committee has had two plenary meetings and is pursuing the problem of currency transferability within Europe to the fullest possible extent in the absence of dollar assistance. Machinery has been set up for facilitating compensation transactions between the constituent countries. His Majesty's Government are co-operating in this scheme as occasional members.
(ii) The Customs Union Study Group, at its first meeting in Brussels in November, decided that perhaps the best way of directing attention to the complex problems involved would be to concentrate in the first instance on the question of a common tariff. An examination of this problem is now proceeding and will be reviewed at the next meeting of the Group in January. Meanwhile, His Majesty's Government are making available to the Secretariat of the Customs Union Study Group in Brussels a tariff expert to assist in the study now in progress.
(iii) As envisaged in the Man-Power Report of the Committee, the Italian Government is calling a meeting in January to continue the study of manpower questions as they affect the sixteen countries participating in the Paris Conference.
(iv) In the field of electric power, while the plan sponsored by the Committee must await the provision of equipment, I understand that considerable progress has been made on a European basis with the selection of the most economic hydro-electric prospects in the Alpine-Danubian area, and with a survey in areas of Western and Eastern Europe of low-grade fuel avail-abilities for thermal power stations, together with an examination of the type of power station most suitable technically for use with the fuel available. The results of these surveys will be available shortly.

4. In addition we are continuing to participate fully in the work of the Economic Commission for Europe, at Geneva, which has now taken over the work of the emergency economic committees formerly established in London and Paris. Sub-committees have been set up on steel and manpower, and are likely to get down to business in the New Year. Working parties of the Commission have as suggested in the Paris Report, been examining inland transport problems such as the standardisation of rolling stock, the interchangeability of working parts, flows of traffic and the pooling of freight cars; the recommendations on these problems are likely to be transmitted to Governments in the near future. The timber sub-committee has had one meeting and expects to have another in January.

5. The investigation of mining machinery manufacturing capacity, which the Paris Conference asked the European Coal Organisation to undertake, is being pursued by that Organisation and will be continued by its successor, the Coal Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe.

6. At the same time the United Kingdom, no doubt in common with every country which participated in the Paris Conference, is concentrating its efforts on increasing its own production in order to enable it to play its full part in the programme when this takes effect. It would not, I think, be inappropriate for me to mention that, as regards coal exports, we are beating the timetable of the Paris Report, albeit in small measure, by beginning a modest programme of exports on the 1st January, 1948.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (GROUNDNUTS, STOCKS)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many tons of groundnuts are estimated to be stored up-country in West Africa; and what is the reason for the delay in bringing them to this country.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): On 4th December, there were 70,642 tons of groundnuts from the 1946–47 crop stored up-country in Nigeria and a further 46,625 tons of tin new crop, making a total of 117,267 tons.

Difficulties on the Nigerian railways are responsible for the delay in clearing these crops and much attention has been given to the problem. In this connection, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 10th December to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn).

Mr. Dodds-Parker: May I ask the Secretary of State to point out to those responsible for Colonial development the need to concentrate on transport to move those commodities already produced before producing more of them?

Mr. Creech Jones: Transport bottlenecks are pretty common in many Colonial territories just now, but we are concentrating on that matter and trying to get all necessary material in order that these difficulties are removed.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is there any truth in the statement that the crops are likely to be endangered by locusts?

Mr. Creech Jones: That hardly arises out of this Question.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is there likely to be, or has there already been, any deterioration of the 1946–47 crop?

Mr. Creech Jones: From my information, no.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the recent communal disturbances in Aden.

Mr. Creech Jones: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made in reply to the Private Notice Question by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on 10th December. No more detailed reports of casualties and damage are yet available. The situation has remained quiet. Naval shore parties have been withdrawn, and in view of arrangements for British Army reinforcements, it is not expected that further assistance from the Royal Navy will be necessary.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that at this moment there are enough armed Forces in Aden to prevent a recurrence of that disastrous outbreak.

Mr. Creech Jones: I do not know about being able to prevent a recurrence, but


we have reinforced the Services there, and I hope that any situation which may arise can be kept well under control.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

Rockefeller Archaeological Museum

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will draw the attention of the United Nations Organisation to the risk that the valuable and irreplaceable contents of the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem may be looted or damaged if the museum area be the scene of fighting; and whether he will state the present and future position of the museum's endowments.

Mr. Creech Jones: A working committee of the Trusteeship Council is now preparing a draft statute for the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the plan for the future of the city approved by the United Nations on 29th November. I shall arrange for the United Kingdom representative on the working committee to draw its attention to the risk referred to by the hon. Member. The endowment of the museum is held in investments valued on 30th June of this year at 320,000. Income from the endowment during the present financial year is estimated at £P.9,500. Consideration is being given to the future of this endowment so as to ensure its continued application to the purposes for which it was created.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Secretary of State keep the risk to the museum and its contents under constant review?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, most certainly.

Currency Board

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the future of the Palestine Currency Board.

Mr. Creech Jones: The question will have to be discussed with the United Nations Committee, but I see no reason to doubt that the existing Board will continue to function, in the interests of holders of currency and Palestine generally, pending an orderly transition to whatever arrangements may in due course be made for the future management of the currency of Palestine.

Jewish Immigrants (Transhipment)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what ships are still available to the Government of Palestine for the transhipment of unauthorised Jewish immigrants; how long these ship, will continue to be available; and what is to be their ultimate disposal.

Mr. Creech Jones: With regard to the first part of the Question, there has been no change since the reply given to my hon. Friend on 5th November. These vessels will continue to be available so long as they are required for their present purpose. Questions regarding their future disposal should be addressed to the Minister of Transport.

Dr. Segal: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sooner these ships revert to their original purpose of carrying food supplies to this country, the better it will be for all concerned?

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Poles (Resettlement)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken to resettle the Poles at present in Tanganyika Territory in more suitable surroundings.

Mr. Creech Jones: The majority of these Poles are the dependants of members of the Polish Forces in this country, and will be brought here to join their relatives as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. A few have already left. The question of the resettlement of the remainder is in the hands of the Preparatory Commission of the International Refuge Organisation.

Railway Official (Dismissal)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has inquired into the case of Mr. Edmund Way, who was recently discharged from the Tanganyika Railways, and which was referred to him by the hon. Member for Taunton; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have not yet received the Governor's report. I will communicate with my hon. Friend when it arrives.

Mauritius (Dismissed Official)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reasons Mr. Louis Baudot was dismissed from his employment with the Board of Quatre Bornes, Mauritius; and why he has not been awarded a pension after 20 years' service.

Mr. Creech Jones: Mr. Louis Baudot was dismissed from the service of the Board of Commissioners for Quatre Bornes with effect from the 1st March, 1945, On the grounds that in his capacity of Secretary and Treasurer to the Board he obtained six bicycle tyres from the Supply Control Department in his capacity as Secretary of the Board, whereas only three of these tyres were actually purchased and paid for out of the Board's funds. He subsequently sold a bicycle tyre for Rs.30 when the scheduled price was Rs.4.90. The Board of Commissioners decided to dismiss Mr. Baudot. In these circumstances, under the terms of the Pensions Ordinances, no pension could be granted to Mr. Baudot.

Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Board of Commissioners did in fact act entirely creditably in this matter, as I understand this civil servant has not had an opportunity of learning the basis of the charge, nor to state his case? Will he have the matter looked into, in view of the fact that a petition has been sent to him?

Mr. Creech Jones: The man was charged, but, in the light of these representations, I will look into it. A person concerned has the right to petition if he is dissatisfied with the treatment given to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — SARAWAK (Mr. ANTHONY BROOKE)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Mr. Anthony Brooke has been refused permission to enter Sarawak to present his case to the Residents Court in that place for damages against the Sarawak Press Company and Mr. Digby, the legal adviser to the Sarawak Government, with regard to an alleged libel; why there is no provision for legal representation in the Sarawak courts; and why a British subject is refused the right to plead his case in the British Colony where the wrong has been committed.

Mr. Creech Jones: The reasons for the exclusion of Mr. Anthony Brooke from Sarawak are known, and have been given to the House. They were in no way affected by the institution of the libel action. At the time of the application referred to, it was pointed out to Mr. Brooke that Mr. Digby had stated that he would submit to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom or Singapore Courts; or alternatively that Mr. Brooke could continue the action in Sarawak through an attorney. As to legal representation in the Sarawak courts, there are no lawyers in private practice in Sarawak and so far, I am informed, there has been no demand for them; but the courts grant permission in appropriate cases for a lawyer from outside the Colony to appeal.

Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that it is exactly a year since this question was raised by me in the House? The right hon. Gentleman then said it would only take a short time before Mr. Brooke would be allowed in, and does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that everything is being done to victimise this wretched man, and to prevent him from at least saying what he wants to say, and going to places from which, without ever being brought to trial on any charge, he has been excluded by the right hon. Gentleman, who said it was an illegal action to go there?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper. It is true that this question was raised a year ago, and I am in communication with the Governor in regard to the whole matter of the future of Mr. Brooke in that part of the world.

Mr. Delargy: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his reasons, or rather excuses, for excluding Mr. Brooke from Sarawak have never satisfied hon. Members of this House, and that we regard the decision as tyrannical, and a violation of the rights of a British subject?

Mr. Creech Jones: The reasons have been given in this House and are reasons determined by the Government—[HON. MEMBERS "They never satisfied us."]—I have already stated that this is a matter which is a subject of discussion with the Governors concerned.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: In reference to the original answer, and in


view of the fact that it is admitted that the legal adviser to the Government of Sarawak wrote this article, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his policy that members of the Colonial legal service are to be given leave and licence to make attacks on those with whom they disagree politically, and are then protected against those persons answering the attacks among the people to whom those attacks were published?

Mr. Creech Jones: No protection is being given to anybody. The question was that a libel action was to lie in the court of Sarawak and the defendants concerned were quite prepared for the case to be heard elsewhere, if there were difficulties in the way of the applicant presenting his case in person.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman stopped him.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am looking into the whole problem of legal procedure in the courts of Sarawak and giving personal attention to the position of Mr. Brooke in regard to entrance to Sarawak, and discussing the problems with the Governors on the spot.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate my point, which is a very serious one? The whole object of bringing a libel action is not to get damages, but to show the answer to the attack that is made. If it is impossible to make that answer clear among the people to whom the libel is published, is not the plaintiff hopelessly prejudiced? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that matter?

Mr. Creech Jones: I will certainly look into the matter, but the defendants expressed their willingness to have the case heard either in Singapore or United Kingdom courts.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been looking into it for a year, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREANS, MALAYA (TRIALS)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Koreans on

trial in Singapore and elsewhere for their actions during the Malayan occupation are forced to have Japanese defenders and are not allowed to be defended by Koreans.

Mr. Creech Jones: I regret that it is not possible to reply fully to the hon. Member today on this matter, on which I am in consultation with the Secretary of State for War; but a reply will be communicated to him as soon as possible.

Mr. Teeling: Can the Secretary of State assure us that in the meantime no Koreans will be tried and defended by Japanese?

Mr. Creech Jones: The evidence we have to date is that that is not the case, but I am not quite satisfied that I have all the necessary information and I would prefer to delay the matter until it is in my possession.

Mr. Teeling: I was asking the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that no Korean who will be tried will be defended by a Japanese until a decision has been reached.

Mr. Creech Jones: I will make that representation to the Secretary of State for War.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (CONSTITUTION)

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds it is considered that Cyprus is entitled to a lesser degree of self-government than Ceylon, Malta or Jamaica.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have recently received a Memorial from certain Greek Cypriot members of the Consultative Assembly in Cyprus charged with the task of considering further constitutional advance. I am considering their representations and regret that at this moment I cannot anticipate the decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CAMEROONS (HARBOUR FACILITIES)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any improved harbour, facilities are projected for the British Cameroons; and when these are likely to be completed.

Mr. Creech Jones: The existing harbour facilities in the British Cameroons, which comprise a deep water wharf at


Tiko, the property of the Cameroons Development Corporation, and a deep sea anchorage at Victoria, are considered ample for the existing volume of trade. Consideration has been given to a proposal to extend a wharf at Bota, owned by the Cameroons Development Corporation, to permit coastal vessels to berth alongside, but I am advised that the present volume of trade would not justify expenditure on the scale which would be involved by such an extension.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Stores and Equipment, Palestine

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Defence what is the approximate value of installations, stores and equipment in Palestine belonging to the Royal Navy, the Army, and the R.A.F., respectively, and what arrangements are to be made about these prior to the withdrawal of our Forces from Palestine.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I regret that I am unable to supply the figures asked for by the hon. Member. The valuation of the installations, stores and equipment belonging to the three Services in Palestine would have to be carried out locally by staffs whom it would be unwise to divert from their more pressing duties in organising and carrying out the evacuation of the Forces from that country. The basis of any such valuation, if attempted, would be very uncertain, since, for some categories of stores it would represent the replacement value, while for others it would represent only the disposal value obtainable from a willing buyer. As regards the second part of the Question, instructions with regard to the evacuation of stores have already been issued, and evacuation by sea and land is proceeding as quickly as possible; the disposal of fixed assets is in hand.

Mr. Low: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of the proportion of the installations, stores and equipment which will have been evacuated by August?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think I could offhand. It will take some little evaluation to do that, but we are anxious to secure for ourselves, in the evacuation, those things which continue to be of replacement value to us, and we are concentrating upon them.

Earl Winterton: I presume that at some period the Minister of Defence will inform the House what is to happen to any of these installations, if any of them should be left there when the evacuation takes place?

Mr. Alexander: I should think that would be quite proper, but I am not sure whether it would be my function or that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We will look into it.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Is it true that a large amount of motor transport will probably be left both in Palestine and Egypt, and has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of making it available to nearby countries which suffered enemy occupation in the war, and are still very short of such transport?

Mr. Alexander: All these matters are being taken into account, but the first consideration is to secure the utmost economy we can for our country.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us upon what, if any, principle, permanent and immovable installations are being left or destroyed?

Mr. Alexander: The more permanent installations will certainly not fall within my category for negotiation; I have an interest in them but they are more a matter for negotiation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Major Legge-Bourke: Did any stores or equipment come under Lend-Lease originally, and will these have to be returned?

Mr. Alexander: I cannot say without notice, but I should think that there would not be very much of that now.

Demobilised Personnel (Civilian Clothes)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Defence if he will give an assurance that men now with the Forces will, on demobilisation, be given civilian clothes on the existing scale; and that it is not his intention to substitute a money payment in lieu of clothes.

Mr. Alexander: Men called up in 1947 for a fixed term of two years or less will, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 21st January


last, receive a supplementary allowance of clothing coupons on release. All men called up before 1st January, 1947, and released under the age and service group scheme will receive civilian clothes on the existing scale. Certain difficulties are being experienced in the supply of suits, and to overcome them some modifications in the method of issue are now being discussed with the trade, on whose cooperation I am sure we can rely.

Mr. Lipson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer make it clear that the pledge which has been given to the men will be kept? Is he further aware that his own intervention and action in this matter are greatly appreciated?

Mr. Alexander: My view is that the pledge must be kept. It may perhaps happen that there may be a little difficulty here and there,. We are discussing the best possible way out with the trade, who, I am sure, will desire to help us meet the pledge which has been given to the men.

Co-ordination

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent administrative and operational co-ordination in the three Services has been achieved since his Ministry was established; and if he will make a statement on his future plans in this direction.

Mr. Alexander: Under Ministers, the operations of the Services are fully coordinated through the organisation of the Chiefs of Staff which was described in the White Paper on the Central Organisation for Defence published in October, 1946. That White Paper also described the machinery to be established for co-ordination in the administrative sphere, including the appointment of a Standing Committee of Service Ministers under my Chairmanship. For a report on the progress made, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the Defence White Paper early next year.

Mr. Haire: Could not my right hon. Friend now detail his achievements more precisely than he has done? Is it not possible to achieve more co-ordination in such directions as maintenance, pay, photographic reconnaissance, etc., and thereby cut down the manpower involved?

Mr. Alexander: All these matters have been under examination. I certainly cannot deal with them by question and answer.

Potato Rations

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Defence the potato rations for the three Services.

Mr. Alexander: The present potato ration of the Army at home is 1 lb. a day for men and 14 oz. for women. Under the Naval and Air Force systems of messing on a cash allowance basis, there are no fixed rations of potatoes. It is hoped shortly to announce the adjustment of various items of Service rations, including reductions in the amount of potatoes, in the case of all three Services.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Carrots

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Food why the movement of carrots between Yorkshire and Lancashire has been prohibited; to what extent the current domestic crop is likely to satisfy demand; and how many tons of Danish carrots have been imported in the last six months.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Home supplies are lower this year than normal and my right hon. Friend has therefore arranged for the importation of 10,000 tons from Denmark. Danish carrots, of which about 800 tons have so far been imported, are being marketed in Lancashire and in other Northern Counties. The local demand is being met in this way and we are able to conserve our own supplies for the time being.

Mr. Erroll: Does the hon. Lady realise that the public would rather have Danish butter than Danish carrots?

Hospitals, Scotland (Dietary)

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Food if his attention has been called to the difficulty that hospitals and infirmaries are experiencing in Scotland in providing a necessary and varied diet to patients; and if he will exempt these institutions from pointage on oatmeal and potatoes.

Dr. Summerskill: Patients in hospitals and infirmaries in Scotland, as in England and Wales, get the same rations as


they do at home. They may also get extra allowances when these are recommended by our medical advisers as necessary for the treatment of certain diseases. I greatly regret that the supply position does not permit me to do more.

Nuts

Colonel J. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Food what was the profit per lb. made by the Ministry in the recent sales of edible nuts; and what percentage of profit does this represent on the cost price.

Dr. Summerskill: The profit per lb. was about 3s. 2d. which, based on ex-warehouse cost, was about 237 per cent.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the Minister agree that if the Association which normally handles these nuts had made that profit it would have been railed at and considered excessive?

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Could the Minister say what the average price of these sales to the retailer was, and how it compares with the price of 10s. per lb. at which the nuts are selling in my constituency?

Dr. Summerskill: They have not been sold for a long time. We had not enough to sell last Christmas.

Mr. Norman Bower: Does this mean that the Socialist Party is now convinced of the rightness of the profit motive?

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Will the hon. Lady say why nuts imported in June, 1946, were not sold last Christmas?

Dr. Summerskill: Some were.

Fishmeal

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking, to increase the supply of fishmeal for feeding to pigs and poultry; and the prospective supplies for 1948 compared with 1938.

Dr. Summerskill: Our supplies of fishmeal, which are mainly home produced, depend largely on the size of the fishing catch. During the war they fell to one-third of our prewar quantities. For 1948 it is estimated that we shall have three-quarters of the supplies available in 1938. We shall buy all we can obtain from foreign supplies, the main source being Iceland.

Mr. Hurd: We all agree that nature has something to do with this; but is the

Minister of Food making proper provision for surplus fish, such as herring, which are not required immediately for human consumption, to be taken up and made into these valuable foodstuffs for pigs and poultry?

Dr. Summerskill: We are prepared to take any herring from the fishermen at 30s. a cran.

Exports

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Food what export target he has set for his Ministry; to which countries food is being sent; and if he will show the varieties, quantities and values of these foods.

Dr. Summerskill: The export target for the food and drink industries as announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 13th September, 1947, is £5,500,000 monthly by the end of 1948. The principal commodities are whisky, gin, beer, refined sugar and processed foodstuffs which have a high conversion value. Manufacturers are being urged to direct these exports, wherever possible, to hard currency countries.

Mr. Spence: Can the hon. Lady give an assurance that no oatmeal or oat products will be exported while oatmeal remains at four points a pound in this country?

Dr. Summerskill: I think I can, Sir.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: What proportion of the £5,500,000 is attributable to food as distinct from drink?

Dr. Summerskill: I would have to have notice of that Question.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: asked the Minister of Food what was the value of foodstuffs exported during the last three months, for which particulars are available, to dollar countries, non-dollar countries and the sterling area, respectively.

Dr. Summerskill: In the three months August to October, the latest period for which figures are available, the value of exports of foodstuffs, produced or processed in the United Kingdom was as follows: dollar countries, £3,562,000; non-dollar countries excluding the sterling area, £3,669,000; sterling area, £4,822,000.

Mr. Reid: Does not the hon. Lady agree that that is rather a large proportion for the non-dollar countries, and that our main object in exporting food, obviously, should be to get dollars?

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He must realise that we are under obligation to export some of this food to our Colonies.

Mr. Reid: Certainly.

Dr. Summerskill: Of course, a great deal of that is contained in these figures.

Bananas

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Food whether dried bananas are on sale anywhere in Britain; and if he will consider making these available in larger quantities to housewives in Scotland.

Dr. Summerskill: My Department does not undertake the distribution of dried bananas. Supplies are imported on private account, under licence, and distributed to the health food stores.

Sausages (Whalemeat)

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Minister of Food what percentage of whale-meat is now contained in the average sausage.

Dr. Summerskill: None, Sir.

Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Lady aware that I have seen a factory where some is incorporated in sausages, and will she inquire into that?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman should have asked. "What is an average sausage?"

Mr. Morrison: What is it?

Dr. Summerskill: An average sausage is 50 per cent. meat. If whalemeat is incorporated alone, it would then be called a whalemeat sausage.

International Emergency Food Council (Recommendations)

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Food what foods and feedingstuffs are now allocated by the International Emergency Food Council; what food and feedingstuffs are now the subject of recommendations by that body; and what allocations and recommendations have

been published during the last twelve months.

Dr. Summerskill: The I.E.F.C. makes recommendations to Governments regarding the allocation of bread grains, rice, dried peas and beans, cocoa beans, oils and fats, meat, oil cakes, and molasses. It has made recommendations regarding sugar up to the end of 1947. It is the Governments of the exporting countries which allocate the supplies they have available. Information has been published on behalf of the I.E.F.C. from time to time during 1947 as to recommendations about rice, peas and beans, cocoa beans, sugar, molasses, meat, and oils and fats.

Mr. Spence: Could the hon. Lady say where this information is available to hon. Members; also can she say whether the I.E.F.C. makes recommendations regarding supplies from the Argentine?

Dr. Summerskill: The I.E.F.C. relays this information. If the Press do not think that it is very interesting, it may be difficult to find.

Mr. Spence: May I have an answer to the second part of my question—whether the Argentine accepts recommendations from the I.E.F.C.?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Mr. Drayson: Is the Argentine a member of this Council?

Dr. Summerskill: I should amplify my answer. Hon. Gentlemen must remember that the I.E.F.C. can only make recommendations. The exporting countries make the allocations. If the exporting country does not agree with the recommendation, it will not make the allocation.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Would the hon. Lady place in the Library a note of the particulars of allocations and recommendations, because it is not satisfactory for hon. Members of this House to have to depend on scraps in the Press.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that we may have the recommendations but we cannot possibly have in our possession details of the allocations to foreign countries.

Mr. Reid: Could we be given the details which the Ministry have got?

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Lady consider publishing, in the space reserved for "Food Facts" in the Press, the allocations made by the I.E.F.C.?

Dr. Summerskill: I will consider it, but I do not think that the general public are interested.

Annual Dinners (Territorial Army)

Mr. J. Morrison: asked the Minister of Food if he will consider allowing local Territorial Army formations to hold annual dinners with numbers in excess of 100 in order to encourage recruiting.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. To do so at the present time would be contrary to the Government's policy which I explained in detail during the Debate in the House on Thursday, 27th November.

Mr. Keeling: Would the hon. Lady say why soldiers and ex-soldiers are denied this privilege which is given to aged miners and old age pensioners?

Dr. Summerskill: I think I explained in the Debate why that was so.

Hon. Members: No.

United Kingdom Estimated Requirements

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: asked the Minister of Food whether the estimates of total requirements and import requirements of food for the United Kingdom for the years 1947–48 to 1950–51, contained in the Stationery Office publication, Committee of European Economic Co-operation, Volume II, have his approval.

Dr. Summerskill: The figures to which the right hon. and learned Member refers were prepared in July last and were approved as the best estimates that could be prepared in the light of the information then available.

Mr. Reid: Does the hon. Lady consider that they are satisfactory and that they will afford us a sufficient quantity if the estimates are fulfilled?

Dr. Summerskill: We hope so.

Tinned Snoek Consignment (Condition)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food what inspection was made prior to shipment in s.s. "Novelist" of

the consignment of tinned snoek at present en route to this country; whether he is aware that this consignment is known to be of low quality; and, in view of the importance of establishing public confidence in this South African product, whether he will arrange for special inspection before this consignment is distributed to the public.

Dr. Summerskill: I understand that inspection takes place in South Africa on behalf of the South African Canners' Council, but, of course, the Ministry's contract, which is on C.I.F. terms, provides for inspection in this country, and the goods shipped on s.s. "Novelist" will be examined by the Ministry's inspectors as part of the usual routine.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the public statement made by responsible officials in South Africa and statements in the South African Press, will the Parliamentary Secretary give particular and extra scrutiny to this consignment?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, certainly. I would not like the public to think that some of this fish is not of excellent quality. Some has been sent salted, and I agree that some was a little tough. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall inspect it carefully.

Raw Materials (Catering Establishments)

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Food what quantities of rationed raw materials have been granted against permits during each of the last seven years to each of the following categories of catering establishments: commercial catering establishments, works canteens and hostels, school feeding centres, civic restaurants and staff dining rooms, showing the amount, separately, for quantities issued to new licensees in each year in each category.

Dr. Summerskill: I regret that information for the separate categories is not available for the years 1940–45, nor for any year in respect of quantities issued to new licensees. As the answer for the years 1946 and 1947 is rather detailed I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:




ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF RATIONED FOODS AUTHORISED TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF CATERING ESTABLISHMENTS.


——
Tea.
Preserves.
Fats.
Sugar.
Cheese.
Meat £'000.
Bacon.


Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Retail.
Tons.



1946.
1947.
1946.
1947.
1946.
1947.
1946.
1947.
1946.
1947.
1946.
1947.
1946.
1947.


Commercial Catering Establishments
8,400
8,220
11,400
12,750
24,470
26,650
30,370
33,900
7,070
6,770
5,230
5,700
5,960
4,040


Works Canteens
7,000
6,700
8,070
8,600
22,700
24,500
28,380
31,550
9,480
7,100
5,340
7,050
3,600
2,400


Schools and Young Persons Centres
200
220
3,420
3,600
7,750
7,800
8,120
8,700
1,320
1,130
5,080
5,200
1,800
1,750


Civic Restaurants, Staff Dining Rooms, Clubs
990
1,020
2,080
2,500
4,480
4,750
4,700
5,100
1,260
1,130
1,490
1,650
900
660


Total
16,590
16,160
24,970
27,450
59,400
63,700
71,570
79,250
19,130
16,130
17,140
19,600
12,260
8,850

Oranges (Allocations)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Food why the Bristol area is only now about to receive its tenth allocation of oranges while most of the country have already received twelve; and if he will take steps to see that Bristol is equally treated.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) on 15th December. Bristol is receiving exactly the same treatment as similar areas.

Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Lady aware that I received this information from a very reliable source in Bristol and that, when I received it, I put down a Question in order to confirm it?

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend will remember that my right hon. Friend announced in the House that counties in the North of England were to have special consideration as a compensation for the small amount they receive from home produce. It is quite right that some places may only have received the eleventh allocation whilst perhaps the Northern counties have received their thirteenth allocation.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTARIANS, NORTHERN IRELAND (TRANSFERENCE)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to implement the pledges given to the Gibraltarians, still living in camps in Northern Ireland, to transfer them to London this winter.

Mr. Creech Jones: His Majesty's Government are deeply concerned about the Gibraltar camps remaining in Northern Ireland, and are doing everything possible to restore to Gibraltar the 1,340 Gibraltarians left out of the total of 17,000 evacuated as soon as accommodation can be made available in the Colony. But it is evident that at least 700 must remain in the United Kingdom for some time yet, and every effort has been made to secure accommodation for these people in London. Owing to practical difficulties.

I regret that our hopes have not been fulfilled, and my officers are exploring with all expedition with the other Ministries concerned arrangements for settling them in other parts of Great Britain outside the London area.

Sir W. Smiles: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Gibraltar people feel that he has let them down, and that the Minister of Works is also responsible for this?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think there are various difficulties in the way of settling these people in London. We had hoped that these difficulties could be overcome. Unfortunately, that is not the case, but we have already started again to discover accommodation outside London because of the many practical difficulties of settling these people back in London.

Mrs. Manning: Could my right hon. Friend say what has happened to the accommodation in Gibraltar from which these people were taken, and why they cannot go directly back to Gibraltar?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is absolutely impossible to get these people back to Gibraltar. Accommodation there is crowded to unhealthy limits, and the military are still there in part of the accommodation, though they have squeezed up to the limit of their capacity. I can assure the hon. Lady that, where civil accommodation is available, everything possible is being done.

Mr. Sorensen: Will my right hon. Friend say why the accommodation that was secured in London could not be used? Surely, if the premises are there, it would be easy to get them ready for these people?

Mr. Creech Jones: There are practical difficulties in the way. The premises could not have been made suitable for these people until April of the coming year.

Mr. Pritt: Is my right hon. Friend aware, in reference to his earlier answer to a supplementary question, that from my own extensive experience I can say that the people of Gibraltar do not think that he has let them down, but that he is doing his best to find them shelter?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about Business, and especially concerning any statement which the Foreign Secretary might be able to make?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. Following upon the request made from the Front Bench opposite yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement tomorrow.

COAL EXPORTS (INCREASE)

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Despite the condition of my voice, I will make a statement on the coal position.
As the House will recall, the winter coal budget provided for the needs of industry to be met in full and for domestic consumers to receive the same, but not more than last winter; but it did not provide for anything in the nature of a regular coal export programme. Shipments overseas were to be almost wholly confined to the provision of bunkers on a restricted scale. More recently, in order to relieve the inland transport position in certain areas the National Coal Board were given discretion to supply additional coal for bunkers and bunker depots abroad and to ship occasional export cargoes. It is now six weeks since the beginning of the coal winter. During these weeks, output has been somewhat greater than we estimated and consumption—particularly by industry—somewhat less. Stocks, accordingly, now stand at a higher level than was expected.
In the light of these favourable developments and of the export commitments entered into at the Paris Conference in August, the Government have come to the conclusion that certain modifications can and should now be made in the coal allocation plan for this winter. As from 1st January, 1948, the amount of coal to be made available for exports, bunkers and bunker depots abroad will be increased from 112,000 tons a week, as provided in the budget, to 200,000 tons a week. About three-fifths of the 200,000

tons will be for bunkers and bunker depots abroad and the balance for exports. Potential customers for exports will be countries which participated in the Conference of European Economic Cooperation and other countries—subject in each case to securing in trade arrangements a good return for this country in food, raw materials or dollar saving. At the same time, supplies should be sufficient to provide for an increase of about 20,000 tons a week for domestic consumers. This is not a large increase—only about 3½ per cent. of the present total allocation for house coal, but it will help to meet some of the harder cases and to bring relief where the shoe pinches most.
Finally, it is necessary to increase supplies to the coke ovens. The present programme is not sufficient to meet the continued high requirements of the iron and steel industry for coke, and another 20,000 tons of coal must be provided for carbonisation. On the other hand, it is clear from the experience of recent weeks that the coal requirements of the iron and steel industry were over-estimated and a saving will be achieved on this account which almost precisely balances the increased needs of the coke ovens.
I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of these changes. If we are to meet the commitments entered into at Paris, and also to be able to export small quantities to other parts of the world, we must average throughout this year not 200,000 but 300,000 tons a week for exports and bunkers. Moreover, these figures are to to be compared with the 900,000 tons a week for exports and bunkers which was normal before the war. Nevertheless, this is a milestone on our journey, even if there are still many more to come, and we have reached it sooner than at one time seemed possible. Therefore, all those who have helped to bring us thus far—all engaged in the getting of coal, deep-mined and opencast, and those who have saved fuel in industry and at home—may well be proud of their achievement. The nation looks to them with confidence for another sustained effort so that we may continue our advance to the next milestone on our journey.

Captain Crookshank: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? I think I heard him right when he said that the


consumption by industry is somewhat less than estimated, which he considers is a favourable development. That seems a very strange saying, unless he can say that it is due to better methods of saving fuel, rather than slowing-down of industry, which might also be the reason for it.

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no evidence that it is due to the slowing-down of industry, and I think I can confidently say that it is due to the more efficient use of fuel.

Major Lloyd George: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is, in view of the figure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in the Debate at the beginning of the year, that 200 million tons was the bare minimum for our requirements—a figure which has not yet been reached and may or may not be reached for 52 weeks—that we can have that saving in industry, when the right hon. Gentleman told the House earlier that that was the minimum requirement?

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the calendar year 1947. My statement, of course, relates only to the coal winter of 1947–48.

Major Lloyd George: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the calendar year, when he started that the bare minimum for that period was 200 million tons, no matter whether the winter was a cold one or not. That figure has not yet been reached.

Mr. Gaitskell: I think there is some confusion here. Actually, I suspect that we really over-estimated our minimum needs, and, in fact, I think I have said so on other occasions. I am concerned with the programme for the coal winter and not the calendar year.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister and the Government take into consideration some means of commemorating the very great effort which the miners have made, and the work done by his predecessor in inspiring the men to make that effort.

Mr. Gaitskell: I only want to say that, of course, these favourable developments owe their origin to action taken in the past.

Mr. David Eccles: I understood the Minister to say that we are now free to export coal in whatever direction is best for the United Kingdom economy. On the other hand, it looks as though we

are committed first of all, to export coal to the participating nations. Can the Minister say which is the correct explanation?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will read the statement I have made, he will find it put there very carefully and plainly. The position is that we undertook—one can say, more or less undertook—at Paris that we would export six million tons in the calendar year 1948 to the countries participating in the Conference, but that did not debar us from exporting to other countries.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is not the saving partly attributable to the burning of oil in the place of coal?

Mr. Gaitskell: To a small extent, yes.

Mr. Usborne: While I welcome the news, may I ask if the Minister can say whether it is possible to give a definite assurance that there are sufficient stocks for the power stations and the industrial concerns to see them right through the winter?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think my hon. Friend need have any anxiety, but I shall watch the position very carefully indeed.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the price of this export coal will be?

Mr. Gaitskell: That will be a matter for commercial negotiation between the National Coal Board and the importers.

Mr. Austin: In view of the importance of coal exports, can the Minister say whether, in the event of difficulties being experienced by private enterprise export agencies, he will give full authority to the Coal Board to undertake its own export programme?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think we can safely leave the matter in the hands of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Erroll: While I welcome this most encouraging statement, may I ask the Minister if he took into full account the serious and deteriorating fuel oil conditions?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am answering a Question on that subject tomorrow, and I think we had better leave it till then.

Mr. Spence: Is the Minister aware of the very grave concern about the rising price of coal, especially in the trawling industry, where, I understand, it amounts to 25s. a ton?

BILL PRESENTED

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL

"to amend the Friendly Societies Acts, 1896 to 1929, and the Industrial Assurance Acts, 1923 to 1929, and to amend provisions corresponding or relating to provisions of those Acts contained in the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1928, and other enactments, as to payments on deaths of children, payments on deaths where no grant of probate or administration has been made, investment in savings banks, the designation of auditors appointed thereunder, the mode of determination of disputes and interpretation," presented by Mr. Glenvil Hall; supported by Mr. James Griffiths and the Solicitor General; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL LIST

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we first had a general Debate on the subject matter of the Resolution, and that I should then call the Amendment which I have selected. I think it right to inform the House that I propose to accept the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to leave out paragraph (a); and that, in the event of that Amendment being rejected, to call a manuscript Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Motion, in paragraph (a) to delete £25,000 and to insert £20,000.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: may we know who is moving the manuscript Amendment?

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Members. The Amendment is in the name

of the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb), and other hon. Members.

Mr. Nicholson: Is it not unusual for a manuscript Amendment to be moved at the last moment like this?

The Chairman: The Amendment has been on the Table, and I have considered it; it is an Amendment which I think I ought properly to call.

3.47 P.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sit Stafford Cripps): I beg to move:
That there be charged on the Consolidated Fund the following annual sums,—

(a) for Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth during her life, as from the day of her marriage with His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, £25,000 in addition to any sum payable to her under the Civil List Act, 1937;
(b) for His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh during his life, as from the said day, £10,000;
(c) for His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, in case Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth dies in his lifetime leaving a child or children, during any period after her death during which he is living and their child or one of their children is Heir Presumptive to the Throne, £15,000 in addition to the said sum of £10,000."

The Committee have before them the Report of the Select Committee over which I had the honour to preside. They will observe from this Report that the decision is not unanimous, having been passed by 13 votes to five. I will deal later with the points on which the Select Committee were not agreed, but I hope it will be realised that there was no difference of opinion on principle. It was recognised, I believe, by all Members of the Select Committee that, under our system of constitutional monarchy, the Heiress Presumptive and her Consort occupy high official positions, involving special responsibilities which call for a certain standard of outlay, different from that of the ordinary individual. They have many important functions to perform as representatives of the whole nation, and, indeed, as representatives of the whole British Commonwealth of Nations. Nothing, I think, could demonstrate this more clearly than the intense interest and enthusiasm displayed by all sections of the population at the time of their marriage, which partook of the nature of a national, and, indeed, I might say, of an international event.
In these circumstances, it is the practice for Parliament to make adequate financial provision for the proper and dignified discharge of these functions and duties. There can, I am sure, be no doubt whatsoever that it is our duty to make adequate provision for those who are called upon to occupy positions of such great national importance. That is the basic position which was adopted by the Select Committee when they proceeded to deliberate upon this matter.
I will deal first with the allowance to Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth. Differences of opinion, very naturally, emerged when we came to consider the exact financial provision which would be needed in order to support the necessary standards of her establishment. Detailed evidence was given to the Select Committee as to the probable cost of housekeeping, staff, service, transport, and so forth, and of all those obligations which were imposed in the form of expenditure by reason of the functions that would have to be carried out. That, together with a reasonable personal provision of £5,000 a year for personal expenses, amounted according to the evidence, to a sum of £50,000 a year for the Princess, or £35,000 in addition to the £15,000 which she already receives under the former Civil List Act.
As hon. Members will see from the record of the proceedings of the Select Committee, after considerable discussion it was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) that an allowance of £20,000 should be voted, in addition to the £15,000 at present paid to Princess Elizabeth, making £35,000 in all. That was put to the vote in the Select Committee, and was defeated by 12 votes to five. After further discussion, a subsequent Motion to raise the amount by £5,000, that is, to £25,000, additional to the £15,000, making £40,000 in all, was passed by the Committee by 12 votes to five.
The members of the Select Committee were anxious, as we all are, to arrive at a unanimous decision, if possible, upon this subject matter, and although this difference of opinion which I have mentioned emerged during the discussion, it marks the anxiety of all persons present to reach a compromise arrangement that, finally, the difference of opinion was narrowed down to £5,000 a year. That

is the margin of the different views taken as to the economies which could be made in the estimate of expenditure in view of all the existing circumstances of the country. The Committee will observe that both the majority and the minority considered, in the present financial difficulties which affect all sections of the community, that some economy should be undertaken, and that the sum granted should not be as great as that estimated by the witnesses.
With regard to the allowance for His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, it is, in my view, essential—and this was the general view of the Select Committee—that he should have an adequate income of his own——

Earl Winterton: Major Milner, I desire to raise a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, if I understood him correctly, to certain representations made by the witnesses. Have we the evidence of those witnesses before the Committee, and if not, is it in Order to refer to it?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think I referred to anything stated by the witnesses. I merely stated that evidence of details of different kinds was given to the Committee.

The Chairman: The evidence of the witnesses may be referred to generally, but not specifically, if the evidence is not before the Committee.

Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order. It has been held constantly that the evidence of witnesses before a Select Committee, When it is not published, cannot be referred to, either in detail or as to the effect of it.

The Chairman: I cannot remember the exact words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but the general meaning was to the effect that the evidence before the Select Committee caused that Committee to come to such-and-such a conclusion. That seems to me to be in Order. It would not of course be correct to refer in detail to any specific evidence which is not, of course, before the Committee.

Sir S. Cripps: I had just turned to the case of the Duke of Edinburgh when I was interrupted, and I was stating that in my view—and I am sure in the view


of the Committee too—it is essential that he should have an adequate income of his own, not only to provide for his own personal staff and expenses—including travelling, charitable subscriptions, and matters of that kind—but also that he may enjoy a proper degree of independence in financial matters. The figure of £10,000 a year, which the Select Committee have recommended by a majority vote should be provided for the Duke of Edinburgh, is the same as the provision customary for the younger son of a King. It is not, of course, based upon a separate establishment, and I commend the Motion on that point to the Committee for their approval.
It will be noted that here, too, there was a disagreement in the Select Committee, although I think it may fairly be said that it reflects only another variation of the same general idea. In fact, it is the combined figure of the two incomes which is the really relevant figure here. I do not think anyone who takes the view that the £10,000 suggested for the Duke of Edinburgh should be reduced would take the same view if another figure were included for the income of Princess Elizabeth. In other words, I think the real difference is between £45,000 and 50,000 for the combined incomes.
My own view, which I recommend to the Committee is that the decision of the majority of the Select Committee should be endorsed, and that we should, therefore, make provision for the Heiress Presumptive and her Consort upon the basis laid down in the Motion. I am sure hon. Members will take the view that whatever we do in this matter must be done with a view to supporting the dignity of the Crown and the national prestige. I suggest this is not a matter in which we should cavil at a few thousand pounds, provided that we are satisfied that the standards set are substantially the right ones.
I do not pretend to have any intimate knowledge of the cost of running such an establishment as the Princess and her husband will need to maintain for carrying out their official duties. I feel that probably there are comparatively few Members of this Committee who could claim any such specialised knowledge. But on the evidence which was laid before us, on the basis of their Royal Highnesses, as is known, occupying Clarence House

as their home in London, I, personally, was satisfied that there is no very large margin that can be allowed for economies if they are to do their work of national entertaining in that house together with all the travelling and other expenses which are inevitable for people occupying the position which they do, with its unique responsibilities.
I am convinced, too, that the estimates that were put forward were economically drawn up. Probably, in normal circumstances, we should have been inclined to accept those estimates as put forward, and it is only the fact that in these times all sections of the people must reduce their standard of living, and the certainty that the Royal Family desire to join their people in these economies, that persuades us to reduce these estimates and to provide a smaller sum than that which has been voted on previous occasions of this kind. A comparison—although there is no exact comparison—but a general comparison with former times will show how large the reduction is from prewar standards, not only as the value of money has decreased by perhaps as much as half, but in the actual sums formerly enjoyed. The usual method of making this provision has been by way of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall which, in the days before the war, amounted to £80,000 to £90,000 a year free of taxes. Even so, in some cases that was further supplemented on the occasion of marriage. I hope what I have said deals sufficiently with the Motion arising on the Report of the Select Committee.
There are one or two subsidiary points which I should mention. First, as to the Duke of Edinburgh. In the unfortunate event of his becoming a widower he might be responsible for the upbringing of an Heir Presumptive, the child of the marriage. In that event he would require more than the £10,000 a year which is granted him or which the Select Committee have recommended should be granted to him. It is, therefore, proposed that he should, in those circumstances, but in those circumstances only, be granted a further £15,000 a year, making £25,000 in all. Apart from this proposed increase in His Royal Highness's allowance for any period during which one of the children was an Heir Presumptive, it would not be customary to give the children of the marriage any allowance


until, at any rate, they had reached the age of 18 years. That matter can, therefore, best be left over, as the Committee recommends, for future consideration.
The Report refers also to the position of Princess Margaret in the event of the death of Princess Elizabeth. Provision was made by the Civil List Act, 1937, that in such an event Princess Margaret should succeed to the annuity of Princess Elizabeth, because in those circumstances she would have become the Heiress Presumptive. The position now, of course, is changed by the marriage of Princess Elizabeth, and the provisions of the 1937 Act would no longer be appropriate if there were children of the marriage. The Select Committee, therefore, recommended that the relevant Section of the Act of 1937 should be amended to provide for the application of those provisions only in the event of Princess Margaret becoming Heiress Presumptive.
There is one further point with which I should deal; namely, the question whether the sums recommended by the Select Committee should be chargeable to Income Tax. Since the new incomes will he paid out of the Consolidated Fund, They will be chargeable to Income Tax unless an order is made by the Treasury relieving the recipients of the payment of Income Tax. As a major portion of the allowances will be required to meet official expenditure, I think it would be reasonable that a Treasury Order should be made relieving the Princess Elizabeth of Income Tax as to all but one-tenth of her total annuity of £40,000. That is, she would be chargeable as to £4,000 only. Similarly, in the case of the Duke of Edinburgh it would be appropriate that he should be relieved as to four-fifths, leaving him chargeable as to £2,000 a year only.
The Committee will remember that the Royal Message upon this matter stated:
His Majesty … being anxious that this provision should be made in such a way as not to impose a burden on His people at the present time when they are faced with grave economic difficulties, is willing to place at the disposal of the faithful Commons a sum derived from the savings on the Civil List made during the war years, with the intent that the provision made by them should, for a period, impose no additional charge on public funds.

This matter was taken into account by the Select Committee, and they were informed that it was His Majesty's intention to make from these savings a lump sum contribution of £100,000, equivalent to rather over four years payment of the additional allowance to Princess Elizabeth, if that is on the basis of the majority recommendation. This sum of £100,000 will be taken from the £200,000 which His Majesty was able to invest during the war in Government securities, out of the savings made as a result of the lower expenditure during that period, and on which he has already surrendered the interest amounting to £20,000. These savings on the Civil List are, of course, available to make up deficits on the official expenditure of His Majesty, and, in view of the rise in prices and increases in the cost of salaries and wages, it is clearly necessary that some part of them should be kept in reserve for that purpose.
I wish to take this opportunity, on behalf I am sure, of all hon. Members, of expressing our gratitude to His Majesty for this generous contribution to the Exchequer.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I beg, therefore, to submit to the Committee the Motion carrying out the recommendations of the majority of the Select Committee, and I hope that we shall be able to secure their passage without very prolonged discussion.
May I also express the hope that such Debate as we may have will be objectively addressed to the issue which emerges from the Report, which is, in effect, whether Their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh can maintain the establishment which the dignity and importance of their office require upon £45,000 a year, or, alternatively, whether they will need, as I believe and as the majority of the Committee recommend, £50,000 a year between them for that purpose.
In conclusion, I should like to state how earnestly we hope that this provision, whatever it may be, may help to ensure for the young couple a life of happiness and good fellowship among a people whose honourable devotion they have already earned and will continue to merit, by the simple yet dignified manner in which they will discharge the heavy responsibilities which their high office places upon them.

4.8 p.m.

Sr John Anderson: As I have had something to do with such matters in the past, and as I have some measure of responsibility for the particular proposals which are being submitted to Parliament by His Majesty's Government, it is perhaps not inappropriate that I should take up the time of the Committee for a few minutes at this stage. I think there would be general agreement in the Committee that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated, it is a fortunate circumstance that the main division of opinion likely to develop in the course of Debate today will be not on any matter of principle but on a question of amount, and that the difference is in fact comparatively small.
There are two general observations that I should like to offer to the Committee at the outset. The first is, following what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that there is no question here of imposing a burden upon the Exchequer or upon the taxpayer in respect of the requirements of the Royal Family. On a proper view of the matter there is in fact, as the Chancellor has indicated, a windfall arising from the circumstance that there is at present no Heir Apparent but an Heiress Presumptive.
It follows from that circumstance that the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, which would go as a matter of course to a Prince of Wales if we had a Prince of Wales, become in present circumstances merged in the hereditary revenues of the Crown, which, as the Committee know, are surrendered at the beginning of each reign in return for the Civil List. Quite apart from anything which may be recovered by way of Income Tax, and quite apart from the generous gesture on the part of His Majesty, which is recorded in paragraph 9 of the Report of the Select Committee, it results, therefore, that a substantial sum on balance accrues to the Exchequer out of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall—amounting, I believe in present circumstances, to no less than £90,000 a year.
A second general observation I wish to make—again following the line of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech—is that the Committee is not being asked to make provision for a life of luxury and ease for these young people. I am quite sure that no one here or outside need

envy the position of the young couple—a position which they have of necessity to maintain—or the responsibilities which they have to undertake. I venture to assert that there are few subjects of His Majesty less free to follow their own devices or to indulge their own whims and fancies than the Princess Elizabeth and her Consort. The sums that are being made available for them are not, in the main, for their personal enjoyment. They are largely hypothecated for the maintenance of their position and for the discharge of their public responsibilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Committee that he had no personal experience of the sort of outlay involved in the maintenance of such a position as Princess Elizabeth and her Consort are called to occupy. I have had some experience which is perhaps in some degree relevant—if it is permissible to compare small things with great—as for six years I occupied the position of representative of the Crown in one of the Provinces of India. For the maintenance of that position, sums which could only be described in truth as very large were placed at my disposal, but I had no discretion as to the residences I had to occupy, as to the establishments I had to, maintain or, to a large extent, as to the expenditure I had to incur. During my six years of office I was very conscious of the anxiety that besets a man who, out of admittedly large resources, has to sustain a great amount of obligatory expenditure and who has only a relatively small sum available for discretionary expenditure which he could use as a cushion to absorb any unexpected increase in the non-discretionary element of his expenditure.
I venture humbly to submit to the Committee that we ought to do what is right to protect the Royal couple from that sort of anxiety. I would also suggest that it is of high public importance that the sums made available to the Princess and her Consort should be such that it will be continuously apparent to everybody that they are not open to any temptation to accept aid from any extraneous source—possibly from some undesirable source. I do not suggest for one moment that they would yield to such a temptation, but it is important, in my submission, that everyone should realise that they are not open to such


a temptation. I think we owe that to ourselves and to the Dominions, for whose interest in this matter we are in a sense trustees, not less than to the Royal couple.
I therefore venture to offer to the Committee, for what it may be worth, my personal judgment that, in supporting and adopting the recommendations put forward by His Majesty's Government, this House would be making provision which is not generous but barely just. I entirely support the Chancellor in the recommendations he has made and I welcome, if I may say so, the tone of the speech in which he submitted his recommendation, with which I find myself in entire agreement.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: What I have to say will not receive universal approval in the House. I begin by saying that I am a convinced republican and, had I been other than a British citizen, I would have been a very active republican. But it has to be admitted that in this country the Monarchy is now deeply rooted. My hon. Friends on this side of the House know that is true. There was witness to it on the day of the royal wedding. I was myself electioneering in East Edinburgh so I was not on the scene of this great day of rejoicing in London, but it certainly was so. I am a convinced constitutional monarchist so far as this country is concerned, because we have the British Dominions overseas. I do not believe—and this is really fundamental to the case I want to put to the House—that one could have a sort of presidential republic of the British Commonwealth of Nations——

The Chairman: I would point out to the right hon. Member we are not discussing the respective merits and demerits of a monarchy or a republic and the right hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the Resolution.

Mr. Greenwood: I would not, of course, challenge your Ruling, Major Milner, but what I am trying to put is that constitutionally the British people and the sister nations overseas must be a monarchy. Therefore it is part of my case that whoever is Heir or Heiress Presumptive to the Throne should have "the rate for the job." If we are to maintain—and indeed we must

maintain—the Monarchy it must be maintained with proper dignity. I agree with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, and what the right hon. Gentleman opposite also said in supporting this Motion, that it is not extravagant as things go. People in different walks of life have different responsibilities. People with responsibilities may shirk them or accept them, but if those responsibilities need material support behind them, in order to fulfil them, that material support should be forthcoming. I hope the House will not divide on a Motion like this.
My right hon. and learned Friend said £5,000 was not a lot of money. I remember being cheered on one occasion, and reproved by some of my hon. Friends, when I talked about pounds, shillings and pence having become meaningless symbols. I was reproved by the Leader of the Opposition on the wireless, on the platform and in the Press, and I was reproved by some of my own colleagues. The only difference in the Select Committee was £5,000 a year. I had a discussion with the Secretary of State for Scotland. We tried to work it out. I believe there is some difference of arithmetic between us. But how small it all is! It would, I think, be unfortunate if this Committee, as representing the British House of Commons, were to let it go forth to the world, where our standing is not inconsiderable that we were fiddling about over miserable bawbees of £5,000 a year.
I hope that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will regard this problem in its true perspective as a question of maintaining the dignity of one of the Estates of the Realm; and of doing no more than that, and will think how disastrous it would be if people who are not too friendly to us abroad were scornfully to point their fingers at us and say, "This so-called great people tried to make one of their great institutions live in enforced poverty." [Interruption.] That is what it would mean. I am speaking to my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. Whether they agree with me or not I do not know. I must, however, speak my mind on this. I was in agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend, who was one of the majority in the Select Committee. I would say that, for the credit of this Committee, for the credit of the House of Commons, for the


credit of our people, we do not want this discussion to descend to the level of an unseemly brawl about money. Rather we want to think about the finer things the country can and will do if we maintain our great dignity.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I have never before claimed to speak in the House or a Committee of the whole House on behalf of anybody else but myself, but tonight, this being a special occasion, I desire on behalf of all the Independent Members to associate them and myself with this Motion. Personally, I regret that the Select Committee were not able to bring before the House a unanimous recommendation. Even if they were not able to do that, I should have hoped that, having placed their views on record in the Select Committee, the minority would have been content with that. Anyhow, even though they were not able to go so far as that, I hope we shall be spared a Division on this matter.
I am quite satisfied that the overwhelming mass of public opinion in this country would like to see this Committee and the House united over this matter. The country would like us not to be niggardly at all to Their Royal Highnesses in a matter of this kind. Not only the dignity of the Royal House but the credit and good name of the House of Commons are involved. I hope we can agree to avoid a Division, and that we can show to Their Royal Highnesses that we are not only anxious to do the right thing, but that we are appreciative of what they have done and of what we know they will do for this country.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: I had hoped to have the opportunity of moving the Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, to leave out from "that" to the end of the Question, and to add:
the amount of £5,000 of the annual sum of £15,000 payable to Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth under the Civil List Act, 1937, be regarded as personal domestic expenditure in respect of Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and that the remaining £10,000 together with any further sum to be certified from time to time as necessary by the Comptroller of the Household and payable

by the Treasury be regarded as expenses payments in respect of their Royal duties.
However, you have not seen fit to call it, Major Milner; and, therefore, I am obliged to speak in opposition to the proposals which are before the Committee.
I want to make it clear at the outset that, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) I have no republican tendencies whatsoever. On the contrary, I am very strongly of the view that the Royal House is essential to the Empire, that it is the linchpin of our Imperial Constitution, and that it is, indeed, the link between all the self-governing Dominions. I think it is very important that I should make that perfectly clear in view of what I have to say in a moment. It is because I believe in this monarchic system that I think the proposals before the Committee are very wrong, indeed. It is because I think that our Royal House is likely to fall into disrepute by reason of these proposals that I am opposing them.
Although I am a firm believer in a monarchy, I think that it must be a system brought up to date and in keeping with the spirit and the temper of the times. I am astonished that Ministers of our party should subscribe to the kind of proposals which are before us now. Those who have spoken so far have suggested that all we are talking about is a little matter of £5,000. That is not, however, the case. There are many other issues much more important than that in connection with these proposals. For instance, is not the form of them, is not the nature of them—apart from the actual amount—are not these things also to be brought into consideration? My view—and I hold it very strongly and very sincerely—is that this whole matter has been approached entirely in the wrong way. We need to do what I think we should have done and what I hope we shall still do, and that is to rationalise the whole system.
Right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have indicated that they have no idea as to the exact cost of these royal obligations. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) spoke of the tremendous burden on him of his official responsibilities and of his expenditure in connection with them. Surely, in this year of grace the proper and rational thing to do is to make a


reasonable and moderate allowance to this royal couple, for their personal domestic needs and for all other expenses to be charged in a rational way to an expense account? I do suggest that that is rational, that that is sensible, and—what is much more important—that that would put this whole matter in the right light, not only before this Committee but before the country, which, indeed, is not viewing it in a favourable light at all. I do not want to dilate on that matter.
I could refer to my constituents; I could refer to my own post. I think that probably hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the Committee could testify to the dissatisfaction in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not one."] I can only refer to my experience in this matter—to my postbag and to my constituents, many of whom are disturbed at the idea that it takes £40,000 or £50,000 for a royal couple now to live. That is a great disservice to this royal couple, whom we wish to help and to honour. The proper way, the reasonable way, and the fair way, I think, would surely have been to do what I suggest: to give them a reasonable amount—whether it is £5,000 or £10,000 a year, we do not know, and it is difficult for me as a layman to say—but a reasonable amount for their personal expenditure, and then that all their royal duties and obligations should, in a reasonable, rational way, be charged up to an expenses account.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield referred to his own views, so I regret that I am obliged to remind him of an Amendment which he moved just over ten years ago, when the Civil List Bill of 1937 was before the Committee. That is the Bill which provided, among other things, for the payment of £15,000 a year to Princess Elizabeth. Mark you, the opposition voiced by that right hon. Member was in connection with, not £40,000, but £15,000. He now appears to have turned completely in his tracks, and so altered his views that instead of opposing £15,000 he is now supporting £50,000. I do not understand the mental gyrations of the right hon. Gentleman. On 27th May, 1937, he was supported in the Division Lobby by the present Chancellor, the present Prime Minister and the present Home Secretary, on an Amendment in these terms:

… this House cannot assent to a Civil List Bill which merely accepts and continues traditional conceptions of state ceremonial instead of recognising that greater simplicity in the daily life of the Court is essential in the modern democratic constitution of the British Commonwealth.
Those, apparently, were the sincere views and beliefs of those right hon. Gentlemen 10 years ago. How is it that they have gone full circle and changed their attitude? The right hon. Member for Wakefield then said that the party had given careful consideration to the matter; that he was not speaking merely on his own account or behalf, and he referred to
… a system which day by day, hour by hour, and minute by minute, by surrounding the Monarch with splendour, separates him from his people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1937; Vol. 324, C. 455–6.]

The Chairman: I have already indicated that we cannot make this the occasion of a discussion of the Monarchy, either by quotation or otherwise. The sole question before the Committee is the provisions made, in the particular circumstances set out in the Royal Message and in the Motion before the Committee. I also think that the hon. Member is referring to another occasion altogether, when the Committee was discussing a complete Civil List.

Mr. Chamberlain: I do not wish to prolong the matter unduly. I think I have made my attitude and views very clear. I was merely quoting what the right hon. Member seemed to be thinking 10 years ago. He is now apparently standing on his head.
Whatever is decided finally on this issue, I hope that in this year of grace we shall come to a more reasonable and rational attitude in this matter. I feel that the course I have suggested as an alternative to the Motion before the House is not only reasonable and rational but a system which is bound to come before long. If the Monarchy and all it means is to survive and to remain in our esteem, some such more rational attitude must be adopted.

4.35 P.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I would prefer not to begin by sounding a note of dissent from anyone, but I am bound to say that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) that their Royal High-


nesses should be required to put in a weekly expenses sheet, like a reporter on a daily paper——

Mr. Chamberlain: I did not suggest that. I referred to State expenses, other than domestic and personal expenses, which should be a rational charge to an expense account.

Mr. Harris: —seems to me something between the grotesque and the offensive. I really rise to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), who spoke for the Independent Members, and I should like to associate myself with him in that respect. Obviously, this Debate may take a course which would do credit to the House; or it might possibly take another course, leaving memories which in the future we should rather regret. The investigation of this difficult subject—for it is difficult to assess what is the right expenditure for their Royal Highnesses—has been entrusted, according to tradition, to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. That Select Committee have considered it with care; they had been told that a reasonable estimate would be £50,000, which they reduced to £40,000—a not unsubstantial reduction of 20 per cent. That figure is commended to us with the great authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, and other members of the party opposite who carry much respect, such as the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson).
Certain hon. Members on the Select Committee proposed a lower sum. That, if I may say so, was not only legitimate, but entirely proper. Members of the Select Committee, like all hon. Members of the House of Commons, are stewards for the national substance; and if they thought that a lower sum than £40,000 was a proper sum, it was entirely right for them to propose it. Although I do not think it was improper for them to divide the Committee on the subject, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham I rather regret that that division is being carried to the Floor of this House. At the same time, if the matter is dealt with

in the right spirit, there is no reason why we should regret any discussion. It is a perfectly open question whether £40,000, as I think, or £35,000, as other people seem to think, is a right sum to allot to their Royal Highnesses. We can discuss that perfectly reasonably, and we can choose between the two.
I would only make this appeal, as a Private and an Independent Member. If, after we have discussed it, in a perfectly good spirit and with open minds, the proposed Amendment is rejected, and it is clear that the general opinion of this Committee is in favour of the higher sum, then I appeal to hon. Members who prefer the lower sum to leave the matter there, to join in a unanimous vote, and, with complete good will, to acept the view of the majority, as we so often accept it in many things, so that it might not go out to the country—after the unprecedented rejoicings of four weeks ago—that this Committee is in any way grudging, parsimonious or hesitating over a provision for their Royal Highnesses which, after full consideration, may seem proper.

4.39 P.m.

Mr. Benson: Fixing any sum, for any purpose, is extremely difficult unless one has some criterion. There are various criteria which could be adopted for fixing the sum which should go to the Monarch or to the Heir Presumptive. So far as I can see, there are only two very general principles which can hold the field: either we can have a Monarchy which is what might be described as a ceremonial Monarchy; or we can have a Monarchy which might be described as a Scandinavian type of monarchy. Whichever is chosen, we then have some broad general criteria. When we have decided the type we want, the question of fixing the exact amount is a matter which can be disputed ad infinitum. There is no particular virtue in the sum of £50,000, or in a sum of £40,000, or in the proposed sum of £35,000 which we are to discuss later. There is no measure by which we can say one figure is absolutely right, and another is absolutely wrong.
When we are discussing a broad sum, the best estimate we can make is an approximation. Frankly, I am not in a position to make an approximation so close as £5,000. All I know is that if we


plump for a ceremonial monarchy, we are plumping for something rather more expensive than if we plump for a Scandinavian type of monarchy. On the other hand, we are plumping for something a pod deal cheaper than a republic and a president. I think that the guess—and I do not pretend that it was more than a guess—made by the majority of the Members of the Select Committee is quite as good as the guess of the minority. I do not put it any higher than that. What I am quite certain of is that it is fantastic to quibble over £5,000. Do not let us forget that we have a ceremonial monarchy now, and a ceremonial monarchy is a very expensive thing to keep up.
There may be overwhelming arguments for changing from a ceremonial monarchy to a Scandinavian type of monarchy, but I am not prepared to discuss that, and in any case I do not know whether it would be in Order. If and when we come to discuss that, it must be on the Civil List at the beginning of a reign, and not when we are making a supplementary provision for the Heir Presumptive. We cannot discuss basic principles on a Supplementary Estimate, and we are, in effect, discussing a Supplementary Estimate today. We have, for good or ill, a ceremonial monarchy, and, taking the Civil List amount, the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the various sums spread through the Estimates granted year by year, the Crown costs something in the neighbourhood of £650,000 a year.

The Chairman: That question does not really arise on the Motion before the Committee.

Mr. Benson: I quoted that sum only because I wanted to suggest that we cannot have the Crown upon a ceremonial standard, and the Heir Presumptive on a Scandinavian standard. There has to be some balance between the two. As I said at the beginning, I suggest that the guess of £40,000 is just as good as the guess of £35,000. I think that the discussion is, on the whole, completely trivial.

4.45 P.m.

Mr. McGovern: I will also attempt to criticise these proposals on a reasonable plane, and not indulge in any attacks on the Monarchy, even though I am a republican. I accept

the fact that both the House and the country do not take my view. Therefore, being a realist, one has to conform more to the wishes of the community than to one's personal ideas. I believe that the better way of dealing with this problem would have been to have exempted the Royal Family, that is, the King and Queen, from any revision in regard to their salaries or allowances, and for the advisers to have taken the royal couple and the Royal Family into consultation, and to have said that at this stage, when the country has come out of a world war and the whole community has had to suffer sacrifices and bear tremendous costs and pain, we believe that beginning with this young couple, there should be a departure from past customs and habits, and that, just as the Government are intending to modify the capitalist system, so they want to modify the monarchist institution within that system. We should have said that the young couple should embark upon a more reasonable state of life than has been the case in the past.
I accept the fact, as stated from numerous sources, that a great amount of this money goes towards keeping large numbers of servants and hangers-on of the Court. I think the time has come when that ought to cease, as far as the young couple are concerned. If there are spivs, drones and butterflies surrounding them, we ought to have said that we are proposing a very reasonable attitude in regard to the embarkation on a new form of life by the young couple. I think that the greatest exception is taken in this country, judged from the opinion expressed at public meetings I have attended, to the payment of £10,000 to the young man known as the Duke of Edinburgh. People feel that, while men blinded in the war are being paid 40s. a week, a young man is being taken into the Royal family and handed £10,000 a year, in addition to a cushy job at the Admiralty——

The Chairman: I must point out that the hon. Member is not entitled to make any reflection of any kind oh the Royal Family, either implicitly or explicitly.

Mr. McGovern: I am not trying to make any difficulties, or to make any attack. Suppose I say that he is given a job at the Admiralty that he has never held before. I could not go into the Lobby and vote for this £10,000, when we are paying only


26s. a week to old age pensioners and 40s. a week to men suffering from tuberculosis and those who have been blinded in the war. I could not square my vote with my Socialist outlook.
Another matter to which I take strong exception, is the statement that £100,000 out of previous savings in the Civil List is being provided to give the fund a start, as it were, for a few years. This £100,000 is being used in order to get the pill swallowed by the country. They must have known that there was a difficulty in the public mind when the proposals were being made, and when the pill was to be swallowed. I say that this £100,000 should not have been used in the form of propaganda. I understand that most rich men give a very substantial dowry to their daughters on marriage. If this £100,000 was to be given, it should not have been used in this way to get acceptance of these proposals. If that was its purpose I think it has failed completely.
The nation and this Committee have a responsibility for advising the Royal Family that there is now a complete change, and that, instead of being allied with the elements of vested interests in the Conservative Party of the country, there is need that they should get more into the minds and lives of the community as the representatives of this country, and live a modified life. No better opportunity could have occurred to leave the older members of the Royal Family on their salaries and emoluments, and to begin with this young couple on a different basis. I take complete exception to the proposals that are made. I think that the Government have failed in not trying to get an effective change in the habits and customs of royalty. We should modify our whole outlook on salaries and other things in respect of them. Therefore, if the opportunity occurs, I shall go into the Lobby to vote against the Motion.

4.52 p.m.

Earl Winterton: As a member of the Select Committee, I want to make one or two observations. I do not propose to answer the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) in detail. Nor am I going to be led into making a provocative remark about his speech. I think that the best answer to him is

provided in a most admirable leading article which appeared in one of the principal newspapers today—the "News Chronicle." The sentences which I wish to quote are these:
It is also true that certain of the moneys are spent in pageantry and ceremony. But if these are to be swept away in even the most egalitarian ecstasy of parsimony, the material gain will be insignificant beside the psychological loss. In these drab days, people will not lightly give up the visible evidence of tradition and ancient sovereignty.
These words express exactly the feeling of the people. I think that is a true, measured, dignified statement of the case. In so far as there is a difference of opinion on the subject of the amount, that is a very small matter. The only question is whether any other issue arises. I am not going to impute motive. I am sure that every hon. Member who has spoken in opposition to the proposal is speaking from the point of view of his own convictions and his most sincere beliefs. I am not speaking on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, but in my capacity as a member of the Select Committee, although I think that I shall have their assent.
It is necessary that someone should point out that, while it is quite true that in this Committee the difference of opinion is a sincere and honest one on the subject of what the amount should be, with possibly some variation in the sense that some may wish to see an amount altogether too small, any real opposition—and this should go on record and should be known abroad—to this proposal emanates from one body, and one body only, outside the Committee, and that is the Communist Party. As for the correspondence which an hon. Gentleman opposite has received, I believe that it comes from that source. I think it is as well that it should be so characterised. Why in these matters should we be mealy mouthed? There was a most disgraceful attack in one small Communist paper which enjoys the minimum support in this country. I suppose that no daily paper has had less support——

The Chairman: I do not think that question can possibly arise on this Motion.

Mr. Gallacher: We are not voting money to the "Daily Worker."

Earl Winterton: I agree, Major Milner, but I am entitled to refer to the elements outside the Committee which are opposed to this proposal. I say that so far as this Committee is concerned, there is an honest difference of opinion between both sides, which I hope will be resolved. There can be no resolution of the opinion of those elements outside the Committee who are opposing this Motion, and who are endeavouring to draw away in every country in Europe from the constitutional fabric, and would equally back out if we were considering an estimate for a republican president.
I believe that the great majority of the people of this country want to see this young couple provided with an adequate sum of money to carry out the duties which are allotted to them by the position which they occupy. The Committee cannot have it both ways. Either they must support to a reasonable degree those who are placed by birth in the position of this royal couple, or say, quite frankly and openly, that they do not want to have such a position occupied. The question before the Committee is one which, I suggest, everyone should ask himself: Is this sum of money sufficient or insufficient, or too much, for the duties which this young couple are called upon to perform? If the Committee will come to a decision on those lines, it will come to a perfectly proper and honest decision. I sincerely hope that in doing so, nothing will be done or said which will make it more difficult for Her Royal Highness and her husband, who, after all, have been performing their duties with the assent and support of 99 per cent. of the people of this country.

4.49 P.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like, in my most persuasive manner—if I have a persuasive manner—to get hon. Members on the other side to realise that it is necessary to support the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). An hon. Member behind me said, "What is the criterion?" The criterion ought to be the condition that makes it possible for this young couple to live as one would expect them to live without wasting money on the job. The sum of £100,000 was put into the "kitty." This £100,000 represents savings during the war. That means that out of the Civil List it was

possible to save £20,000 a year. I shall be told that there was austerity during the war for the Royal Family as there was for all the people of this country. Of course, there was. But the people of this country have still to practise austerity.
Is there an hon. Member on the other side who will say that if £20,000 a year could be saved during the war, that is not sufficient, along with the £15,000 to which the Princess is already entitled, to meet the cost of maintaining this young couple? I would ask anyone to say that it was not possible for them to live on that unless they are going to say, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to say, "Yes, there must be austerity for the people, but so far as the Royal Family are concerned away with austerity. Back to the old conditions that obtained when this country was in the heyday of its capitalist boom." I am certain that no Member opposite dare go to the people of the country and say, "You must remain under conditions of austerity, but we shall see that the Royal Family are divorced entirely from the responsibility of practising austerity, and will live as though there was no crisis facing the country." Does anyone mean to say that if £20,000 a year was saved during the war it cannot be saved now, and passed on for the maintenance of this young couple?
The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) said, "If we do not grant the amount which is proposed they may be subject to temptation." What puts that thought into his head? Was it because there was a discussion on this question once before, when the Tories voted for a reduction, and as a consequence the Heir to the Throne did not resist temptation? The Tories should forget now what happened on that occasion; they should realise that we are living under a different dispensation, that the temptations which obtained at that time no longer apply. I have received many letters from limbless soldiers, old age pensioners, and all kinds of people in industry, telling me their conditions and budgets. While people have to live under the austerity conditions of the present day, to suggest that controls or austerity should be removed from the circle around the Throne is astounding. What will this young couple spend the money on? They will not spend it on the Communists——

Brigadier Head: Would the hon. Member recollect how he voted recently with regard to his own salary?

Mr. Gallacher: I do not remember. Maybe I was persuaded to vote for the increase. If I did vote, I certainly had to be persuaded. But in that there is no comparison with this matter at all. There is all the difference in the world between £1,000 a year, with the expenses involved, compared with £1,000 a week. If I can live on £1,000 a year, including expenses, why is it necessary for this couple to have £1,000 a week? They cannot spend all this money on themselves. I challenge anyone to tell me how they can spend it on themselves.
When the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) talks so passionately and wholeheartedly about this young couple, he should explain that he is including—perhaps not himself—the whole circle of associates of this young couple. The money is not spent on good housekeeping, on ordinary domestic expenditure. It is the people who gather around who get most of it. Somebody said that we ought to do the right thing. The right thing is to look after the people of this country, who have had to bear, and are bearing, the burden of the crisis today. If we want to do the right thing then Members opposite should oppose the Motion and support the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. There is no occasion for increasing the allocation of money at the present time. There is plenty of money without this increase to keep the show going so long as it lasts—and I hope it will not last too long.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I am not a republican; I believe that the Monarchy in his country is a symbol of the most successful association of nations that the world has yet seen, and that we are very fortunate in having so charming and well brought up a girl as the heiress to the Throne. Anything which I may say will not, I hope, be construed in any sense as being a criticism either of the office of royalty, or those who fill that office. Nonetheless, I shall feel compelled to support the Amendment which is in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), for this reason——

Mr. Martin Lindsay: On a point of Order. Do I understand, Major Milner, that you intend to call that Amendment?

The Chairman: I see no objection to the hon. and learned Gentleman referring to it and indicating what his views may be.

Mr. Paget: My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) put the matter admirably when he said that what we have to consider is whether there should be a Scandinavian monarchy or a ceremonial monarchy, that is to say, whether the Monarchy should evolve with the people, with modern ideas, with the Monarch and his family living the same sort of lives that are possible for their subjects, or whether they should live on a standard which has become obsolete, the standard of Edwardian days. We are providing this money on the basis of maintaining that sort of standard and to enable this young couple to lead the sort of life which we should describe as the wrong sort of life if anybody else were leading it.
What should we say of anybody else for whom it was proposed to spend something like £100,000 on luxury building within the next two years—because that is what the Clarence House proposition means? What would we say about anybody else who was proposing to live on the standard of a great London residence and a country mansion? We would say that that sort of living is wrong, that it belongs to the past, that it has been rightly put away. We are doing no service to this young couple, or to the principle of Royalty, by supplying them with the means to do things which, if done by anybody else, we should consider wrong. Therefore, in the interests of the continuity and evolution of the institutions of this country, and in order to retain the reputation and affection in which Royalty is being held, we ought not to make this provision.
The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) suggested that feelings against the proposals outside the House emanated simply from the Communist Party. Believe me, he could not be more wrong. This proposal is unquestionably profoundly unpopular in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Very few of us who have to


mix with our constituents have not had that unpopularity brought home very forcibly. I ask hon. Members who have the best interests of the monarchy at heart not to put their heads in the sand over this matter and not to imagine that the generality of the people like this proposal. They do not. We shall be making a great mistake if we make this provision, particularly at this time. At some point the changeover to what may be called the democratic idea of monarchy from the old-fashioned ceremonial idea will have to take place. With this new marriage of an Heiress to the Throne we have the ideal opportunity for that change to a standard of living appropriate to the circumstances of today. We should take this opportunity.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Eden: I intervene only for a few moments to present one or two considerations to the Committee which have not yet been put, perhaps from a slightly different angle. It is very important that we should bear in mind that we are dealing with a matter which concerns not only this island but the whole British Commonwealth and Empire. It so happens that geographically, this is the country in which Their Majesties reside and in which the Heiress Presumptive resides. She is in an exactly similar relationship to the great Dominions as to ourselves. His Majesty is now King of each of the Dominions, and she is the Heiress Presumptive to each of the Dominions. It is important that we should keep that point in our minds as we discuss this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because that is the most important link which holds the British Commonwealth and Empire together, and because the existence of the British Commonwealth and Empire is an immense contribution to the preservation of peace.

Mr. Rankin: Would the right hon. Gentleman say then, in view of that link and its importance, that some contribution ought to come from the Dominions themselves?

Mr. Eden: I hope that hon. Members will not talk in that strain. Really, this is something very much bigger than asking a Dominion to contribute a small sum. That would be a terrible thing to go out from this Mother of Parliaments. I hope

that, upon reflection, the hon. Member who made the suggestion would like to withdraw it.

Mr. Rankin: It was a claim which, in the first place, came from the right hon. Gentleman and not from me.

Mr. Eden: I do not think the hon. Member could have understood my remarks. I said that we were dealing with something which is of concern to all parts of the Empire, but I meant "concern" not in a financial sense but in the sense of loyalty and the conception of the Crown, which means as much to them as it does to us. It is not a matter of pounds, shillings and pence.
My second point is that this matter would not have come before the Committee at all if it had not happened that we are dealing with an Heiress Presumptive instead of with an Heir Apparent. It would not have come before the Committee because the revenues of the Duchy, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer so well expressed it at the beginning, would have been available, and would have exceeded considerably the sum which is now being allotted. That fact should be borne in mind, especially by hon. Members, of whom I know there are many, who believe that the gentler or fairer sex should always be treated on the same level as the male.
Now I come to the question of the actual figures. To judge from the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) there is some misunderstanding of what the figure represents. Let me give an analogy from quite a different, although in some sense a parallel, sphere, the diplomatic sphere. The Foreign Office Estimates include very large sums indeed for our foreign representatives abroad. I think I am right in saying that the representation allowance "entertainment allowance" is, I think, the technical term—of our Ambassador at Washington amounts now to about £20,000 a year, and that payments in other big capitals are upon something like that scale. I am not complaining about it or arguing whether the figure is enough or too much. I am just taking that figure as an illustration. So far as I know, there have been no representations here that those sums should be severely curtailed.
That is not the whole story. The ambassador, who has his entertainment allowance, also has his staff found for him and paid for. I do not mean the domestic staff; I mean his secretarial and diplomatic staff. In the present case, Her Royal Highness has to pay for her own secretarial staff. The whole of the staff has to be found and paid for out of this money. Take the £20,000 paid to an ambassador in a great embassy as representation allowance, with all found for him except the actual payment for his domestic staff, and contrast it with the £40,000 suggested here for Her Royal Highness, who has to find all the additional expenditure over and above that which an ambassador has to find. The Committee can see that £40,000 does not seem to be a very unreasonable figure. Add to it the subscription lists which the Royal Family are always called upon to head, and which an ambassador has not to meet in the same sense at all. I say frankly to the Committee that the more I look at this figure and consider what the charges will amount to, the more I doubt whether the figure is really high enough.

Mr. Cobb: Could we not have the facts?

Mr. Eden: We are dealing with a problem to which I have tried to address my mind fairly. For hon. Members who say that we should not have a monarchy the position is plain. They will vote against any payment at all. It is the duty of those of us who agree that there should be a monarchy to submit a figure to the Committee which is fair and reasonable.
It is exaggeration to talk, as did the hon. and learned Member for Northampton of a royal establishment upon Edwardian lines. We have nothing approaching that standard. The Edwardian figures, as the hon. and learned Member calls them, were more than double the present figure, while the purchasing power of the figures themselves is certainly half the prewar value and therefore is half at least of the Edwardian value. In fact, the sums we put before the Committee are probably about 25 per cent. of the Edwardian figures.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question? No matter what the money is worth, the Royal Family were able to live and to save £10,000 a year during the war. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that they should now not do so, and be able to splash it all?

Mr. Eden: I know that money was saved during the war because there was absolutely no entertainment, and no heads of foreign States and other such people coming here. I hope that is not going to be the position permanently. I can tell hon. Members opposite that the expenditure of money by our foreign embassies and legations during the war was cut for the same reason that the meeting and entertaining of foreigners was very much reduced. I presume we do not want to cease having this type of thing, and, if not, presumably there will be more expenditure under that head than during the war, and I think savings may be very difficult to effect. I cannot, however, answer for that. All I am answering for is the figures submitted to the Committee.
I have only one other point to make and that is in regard to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) of an expenses account. That again has been considered often in respect of our ambassadors, and it is an extremely difficult thing to do. As Foreign Secretary, I had some experience of that in days when, I say quite frankly, it cost more than one received to carry out the job. The point is that in connection with an expenses account, it is possible to submit every little item to the Treasury, which is extremely tiresome and extremely tedious, and I doubt if it is a reasonable suggestion in a case like this. Even if it were, that does not solve the problem, because unless we are prepared to grant an unlimited expenses account, a figure must be fixed to which the expenses must be related.

Mr. Chamberlain: I did not attempt to fix any figure. My suggestion was entirely elastic. The point was that there should be economy and I was hopeful that it would be a very low figure for expenses. I did not fix a limit and my suggestion was more elastic than anyone else's.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member did not fix a figure and that is why I am explaining the point to him. That will not decide


the problem, because there must be a limit to an expenses account unless the Committee are prepared to allow it without control, to which I am opposed. If hon. Members look further into this question and the cost of our foreign embassies abroad, as well as the foreign embassies in this country, they will find that the sums are not excessive. They are not, of course, for the pleasure of the young people. They are to enable them to carry out the duties which they have to perform. If Empire statesmen or Members of Parliament from the Dominions visit this country it is desirous that the Heiress Presumptive should meet them, ask them to lunch and that so of thing. Is not that of value and something which we ought to encourage?
If the Committee chooses to make a financial calculation, I am prepared to wager that the way our monarchy is run today is much cheaper than a republic. That is not, however, the way we want to measure it. What we want to measure is whether this is a fair suggestion to put before this Committee for work which has to be done by the Heiress Presumptive here and in the great Dominions overseas. I am convinced that this is really the minimum, and I hope the Committee will be so convinced and that they will reflect a little more, because I share with the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) and, I am sure, with the Prime Minister, the view that the Committee should not be divided on this issue.

5.25 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have very little to add to what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) and by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) on the broad question that faces this Committee. We are not discussing today what kind of monarchy we should have, nor are we discussing the amount of the Civil List, for that is settled at the beginning of every reign. We are discussing one item that arises out of the Civil List. Broadly speaking, if we accept this, then we have accepted the conception of a ceremonial monarchy. The amount of pomp and circumstance has been cut down vastly of late years, and it is quite a mistake for

people to imagine that the Royal Family live exceedingly luxurious and easy lives. As a matter of fact, they work hard, and there is no excess of luxury.
I do not think that this country wants anything in the way of a monarchy that is not ceremonial. There is a great demand all over the country and not only in this country but, as the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has pointed out, in other parts of the Commonwealth, for visits from Members of the Royal Family. That all costs money, and if the thing has to be done it has to be paid for. When one looks at the amount it is not really excessive for the duties that have to be done. It is awfully easy to talk vaguely about a mass of hangers-on doing nothing. I have not observed it myself, and those with whom I come in contact seem fully occupied.
It is anybody's guess within £5,000 what is the right sum of money. It is very difficult to assess. Suggestions have been put before the Select Committee, and there have been differences of opinion on this matter inside and outside the House, so that it is anybody's guess. I think on the broad proposition, the recommendations of the Committee give the right line for this House and that they are generally accepted by the country. It is awfully easy to take one sum of money and set it against another sum of money without reckoning anything of the cost and what is being done for it. If we put it to the people by saying, "We are going to cut everything down and have no pomp and circumstance, no nothing," we should soon have complaints.
In a democracy such as ours it is wise that there should be some amount of ceremonial. In other countries we have seen an immense amount of ceremonial, far more costly than we have ever had here, to bolster up a dictatorship. I do not like that kind of marching and that kind of business, but we do want a little light, colour and symbolism in our national life. I do not think we are doing more than is necessary, and the present proposals are in accord with our British Monarchy today, which I believe commends itself to our people in this country and in the Commonwealth by the fact that it is in essence simple—simple lives and approachable people.
We want to give the young couple the facilities for doing the kind of work that the general public wants them to do, of visiting round the country, of seeing the people, of coming into contact with the people, and in contact not only with the people in the United Kingdom, but with people outside. I know that is very strongly felt in the Dominions. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept these proposals which are the result of careful deliberations by an experienced body of Members deputed for that purpose by this House. They have done their best to arrive at a figure, but no figure can be absolutely definite and final and it is the best guess than can be made.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (a).
I have listened with respect to the speech of the Prime Minister, but he has left me absolutely cold. That speech was almost entirely cheered from the Conservative benches. I do not think it represents the opinion of Socialists in this country. To those who do not wish a Division to take place on this issue I would point out that it is no new thing. When a similar matter was discussed in 1840 two Divisions took place. On that occasion the Leader of the Tory Party, Sir Robert Peel, refused to take the guidance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir Robert Peel took the attitude that some respect must be paid to the feeling in the country and that too much expenditure was not justified at that time.
I have refreshed my mind by looking up the files of the Debates of those days and of the report in "The Times" of 28th January, 1840. A Radical Member of this House, Mr. Hume, moved to give a sum of £21,000 as against the sum of £50,000 demanded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was rejected by the House after a very interesting Division. Later the Tories, headed by Sir Robert Peel, took up the point of view that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was too generous in moving that sum for the Prince of that day. There were some very interesting names in the list of the people who went into the Lobby against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was not surprised to find that my predecessor in the representa-

tion of Ayrshire, Lord James Stuart, voted against the Chancellor. I was rather surprised to find in the names of those who voted against the Government that of Mr. Hogg——

Mr. Gallacher: Quintin?

Mr. Hughes: —and still more surprised to find opposed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the name Cripps. The Chancellor of the Exchequer today made a speech which would have made his ancestor—I do not know whether it was an ancestor—turn in his grave. We are accustomed to homilies by the Chancellor on the theme of austerity, but he came marching in today to the tune of "Pomp and Circumstance," and, honestly, the things do not mix. At Question Time yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)—[An HON. MEMBER: "A united front?"]—if he would:
Convene a conference of all heads of Departments, with a view to taking all steps necessary to stop inflation.
We all agree with the necessity for stopping inflation. The Leader of the Opposition made a speech at Manchester recently in which he called for a reduction of £500 million in national expenditure. How are we to start? If he were here, the Leader of the Opposition would no doubt say, "Do not start here." In reply to the hon. Member for Orpington, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
No such conference is required, since all Departments are under constant instruction to avoid unnecessary expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1947; Vol. 445, C. 1508.]
But here is his own Department coming forward, not as was said by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood), with a proposal to add a few miserable bawbees to the Civil List, but with the sum of £25,000 in respect of Her Royal Highness. I share with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the view that we wish the Royal couple a life of happiness and good fellowship, but we want to take them out of the gilded cage. We do not want them in the position of having to carry on the tradition, routine and repressions which weighed so heavily on the Duke of Windsor. We are really doing the Royal couple a service in suggesting that their whole way of life should be changed and in keeping their income, which some of us believe


to be quite adequate, at £15,000 a year and not giving an increase or adding to a civil list which has already attained the very large sum of over £430,000.
The Report of the Select Committee is a most mysterious document. There were two points of view on the Select Committee. There was that of the Prime Minister and, judging by the voting record, there was something in the nature of an embryo Coalition. Five of the Labour hon. Members on that Committee were against the four who represented the Government, and the final conclusion of the Committee is not the finding of the Labour M.P.s of that Committee; instead they accepted the leadership of a reactionary like the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). I do not know what public opinion the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities represents in this Committee, but I assert that he does not represent the frugal-minded, economical point of view of the people of Scotland who, while they are quite prepared to rejoice over a Royal wedding, want to know what it means in actual cost. A statement made by one of the characters in a Bernard Shaw play is relevant:
You may be as romantic as you like about love, but you cannot be romantic about money.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield said that he was a republican. I would rather call him a dehydrated republican. There was nothing in his speech of the robust republicanism of his predecessors to which I subscribe. If we are to pay "the rate for the job," we must consider what other members of the union are paid for the job. References have been made to the Scandinavian countries. They have no Empire, and some of them seem to be better off without one. I have taken a little trouble to find out what the rate for the job is in Sweden. The direct grant to the royal court, including stipends for the King's brothers and the Crown Prince, amounts to £93,000. For maintenance of the Royal Palaces £75,000, a total of——

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but on this Motion we are not discussing either the Royal Family as a whole or the royal palaces; we are discussing a specific Motion relating to the Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Major Milner, I was led astray by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wakefield, who talked about the rate for the job. I have quite convincing figures here relative to the other Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. They are much more modest than our figures, and I am safe in saying that the total sum of all these monarchies put together is considerably less than our bill which is produced in the Civil List.
I believe there is a good commonsense opinion in this country that whatever the goodwill of the Royal Family is, we are faced with a time of economic crisis and austerity, that we should start at the top, and that we are not justified in increasing expenditure at this time. I appeal to the Government to give this matter a little further consideration. This is being rushed through the House. The proceedings of that Committee went at an express rate so that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) who, unfortunately, has been ill, has been unable to express the democratic sentiment of Scotland. The Government realise now, by certain expressions of party feeling, that they may have the Conservative Party behind them on this issue, but they have not the rank and file of the Socialist movement, and they have not the support of the intelligent democracy of this country.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am sure hon. Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Hon. Members need not be impatient, they will probably not like what I am going to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "But we want to hear it."] They will hear it in good time. I would ask hon. Members opposite to accept the views I voice today as a genuine and sincere point of, view, in exactly the same way as we accept their opposition to the fabulous amounts which they contend are paid to the Coal Board officials, etc. It is my opinion, and I hold it very deeply, that no married couple are worth £50,000, irrespective of how high and how important is the position they fill.
It appears to me from some of the arguments put forward this afternoon in support of this Motion that there is a feeling abroad that the royal couple will not be able to be dignified unless they are wealthy. Yet some of the most dignified


people I know are some of the most humble and poverty-stricken. Dignity is not synonymous with wealth, and it would be hard luck, as far as these benches are concerned, if we pretended that it was. It is my opinion that the more money we allow the royal couple to have, the farther their lives will be removed from the common people and if, as I am quite sure they want to do, they wish to endear themselves to the people of this country, the relationship will become closer the more the lives they lead are linked with the lives of the mass of the people they represent.
The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) tried to make a case in support of this Motion by quoting the cost of our embassies and those of other countries. There again, some of us believe that it is wasteful and extravagant, and that in this modern age we ought to cut down on some of that extravagance. As the mover of the Amendment has suggested, at a time like this, when the people are being called upon to make great sacrifices, it seems illogical that we should be granting £50,000 to one couple in order that they may lead a decent and satisfactory existence. I have no hesitation in saying that the Government's Motion does not meet my point of view of social values. The relative importance of people in this country from my point of view is judged by what they do for the country, and I say that the £15,000 already received, having regard to the average wage of the miners, the average wage of the dockers or the average wage of the railwaymen, is ample for the couple to lead proper, useful, and dignified lives. I hope hon. Members opposite, who I know will hate this point of view, will at least believe that those of us who are giving expression to it are genuine and sincere.

Sir S. Cripps: Because we have covered a great deal of the subject matter already, I do not propose to answer at any great length, but I would not like to leave unanswered the arguments put forward. I might reply to the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) as regards comparing this with miners and railwaymen. Not long ago we sent a railwayman out as Governor of Tanganyika, but we did not expect him to do it on his railway

pay. The question is, what do we expect people to do, and are we going to provide them with the means for doing it?
I quite appreciate that people may take a different view of what the Heiress Presumptive should do; that is to say, how much entertainment we should ask the Royal couple to do, how many people from the Colonies and Dominions they should be asked to entertain, how many foreigners they should give parties for, how much they should travel about the country to go and see different parts of it—all of which they do personally. They are not like Ministers, they do not get any allowance for travelling. We might want them to give donations to funds. When the Lord Mayor opens a fund of some kind, do we expect them to give a donation to it? If we do, they must have some money to do it with.

Mr. Carmichael: My right hon. and learned Friend has indicated that the Royal couple, when travelling around the country, pay their own expenses out of the salary which this House gives them. Could we have that repeated? Is it quite definite that they pay all their travelling expenses, etc., when they go out of the country?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly. If they take an aeroplane, they pay for it; if they go by special train or car, they pay for it. It is part of the duties of the job, and this salary is to cover the duties of the job, and it is one of the very heavy expenses of the job. They cannot go alone, they have to be accompanied by certain secretaries and so on. I am only pointing out to the Committee that one must have regard here not to some theoretical consideration but to the practical consideration of what we are asking them to do, and then we have to supply enough money for them to do it. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Hughes) suggested that we might be as economical as Sweden. If he will take the populations of the two countries and work out the cost per head, he will find that we are much more economical than Sweden, especially when he bears in mind that this constitutional monarchy relates not only to the British Isles but to the whole of the Commonwealth and Empire.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I will develop that when I have looked into it.

Sir S. Cripps: I was only pointing out the fallacy which the hon. Member might look into when he looks at it again.

Mr. Gallacher: What about the people of this country?

Sir S. Cripps: There was an interruption from the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)——

Mr. Gallacher: Let me interrupt for a moment——

Sir S. Cripps: I am just about to deal with it. He was suggesting this was unnecessary expenditure. I did say when I first spoke on the Motion, perhaps wrongly, that I had had no experience to enable me to judge of these things. But the speech of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) recalls to me that I have had experience of that kind, and I can assure the hon. Member for West Fife that the pomp and ceremony in other capitals, such as Moscow, is vastly greater.

Mr. Gallacher: That is pretty cheap.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is expensive.

Sir S. Cripps: It has nothing to do with cheapness.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not responsible for what goes on in Moscow.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: It is the other way round.

Sir S. Cripps: I am only trying to perfect the education of the hon. Member for West Fife on a point about which he says he knows nothing. There is provision always made far heads of governments on a lavish scale, some more than others. We do it with dignity and without undue extravagance, and the provision here for the Heiress Presumptive is, I think, reasonable, and I hope the Committee will accept the proposal.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to '£25,000' stand part of the Question."

The Chairman proceeded to collect the voices.

Mr. Gallacher: I understood we were going to have a Division on this question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—We have a right to a Division on this question.

Mr. McGovern: There were distinctly calls of opposition, and I think we are entitled to a vote in the Division Lobby, when the matter is being reduced to one vote instead of three. In justification of the speeches made, there should be collection of the votes.

Mr. Rankin: I would like your guidance on this particular point, Major Milner. In Committee it has been established that if one voice says "No," a Division must be called. There is a Rule of that nature in Standing Committee; does such a Rule govern the Proceedings of a Committee of the Whole House?

The Chairman: I am not clear whether the Committee have appreciated precisely what they were voting on. We were in fact voting on the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and in my view there were very few voices for the Noes and I did not gather that those voicing their sentiments so uncertainly were serious.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it not a constitutional fact that an hon. Member has a right to a Division?

Mr. Carmichael: Can hon. Members be given guidance on an issue of this kind? Those calling "No" were quite distinct. It is clear they were overwhelmingly out-numbered by those shouting "Aye," but we are in Committee, and in Committee upstairs one voice can be responsible for a Division. There were anything from half a dozen to a dozen voices calling "No." In my opinion those responsible for the Amendment are not being treated in accordance with what I regard to be the Rules of the House.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the misunderstanding, could the Question be put again?

The Chairman: In reply to the hon. Member, there will be further opportunity. There will be opportunity for hon. Members to vote on the next Amendment, and, if so disposed, to vote on the Motion as a whole.

Mr. Braddock: On a point of Order. I definitely called out "No,"


and I claim my right to go into the Lobby against this proposal. I am not interested in the other Amendment, but on this Amendment, as a Member of Parliament, I claim my right to vote.

Mr. Gallacher: There was, as you say Major Milner some confusion and hesitancy about the matter. I put it to you that an entirely wrong impression will be created if through a measure of confusion, this Amendment is not frankly put,

and voted on. Why should hon. Members be afraid to divide on the Amendment?

The Chairman: Having regard to the obvious misunderstanding and to the various expressions of opinion in different quarters of the House, I propose to put the Question again.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to '£25,000', stand part of the Question.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 345; Noes 33.

Division No. 51.]
AYES.
[5.57 p.m.


Acland, Sir R.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hale, Leslie


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Crawley, A.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)


Alpass, J. H.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Hardy, E. A.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C
Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Crowder, Capt. John E
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Cuthbert, W. N
Head, Brig. A. H.


Astor, Hon. M.
Daines, P.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)


Attewell, H. C.
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Austin, H. Lewis
Davidson, Viscountess
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Herbert, Sir A. P.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hobson, C. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Baldwin, A. E.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hollis, M. C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Diamond, J.
Holman, P.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Digby, S. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bartlett, V.
Dodds-Parker, A. D
Hurd, A.


Battley, J. R.
Donner, P. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Baxter, A. B.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Drayson, G. B.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)


Beechman, N. A.
Drewe, C.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Bennett, Sir P.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Janner, B.


Benson, G.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jay, D. P. T.


Berry, H.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Beswick, F.
Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Durbin, E. F. M
Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Dye, S.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Binns, J.
Eccles, D. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Birch, Nigel
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Keeling, E. H.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Kendall, W. D.


Boothby, R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Bossom, A. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Key, C. W.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Erroll, F. J.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Bowen, R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Kinley, J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Fairhurst, F.
Lang, G.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Farthing, W. J
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Brown, George (Belper)
Follick, M.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Fox, Sir G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Leslie, J. R.


Buchanan, G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Levy, B. W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gage, C.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Burden, T. W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Butcher, H. W.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Gammans, L. D.
Linstead, H. N.


Byers, Frank
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Lipson, D. L.


Callaghan, James
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Carson, E.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gibbins, J.
Low, A. R. W.


Challen, C.
Glyn, Sir R.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Champion, A J
Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Channon, H.
Gooch, E. G.
Lyne, A. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Greenwood, A W J. (Heywood)
McAllister, G.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G.
Grey, C. F.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Cluse, W. S.
Gridley, Sir A.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Coldrick, W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Collindridge, F.
Grimston, R. V.
McEntee, V. La T.


Collins, V. J.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Mack, J. D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Gunter, R. J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R




McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


MacLeod, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Teeling, William


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Raikes, H. V.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Thurtle, Ernest


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Raid, T. (Swindon)
Tiffany, S.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Renton, D.
Titterington, M. F.


Marples, A. E.
Rhodes, H.
Tolley, L


Marquand, H. A.
Richards, R.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Marsden, Capt. A.
Robens, A.
Touche, G. C.


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Turton, R. H.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Major P. G. (Ecclesall)
Usborne, Henry


Mayhew, C. P.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Vane, W. M. F.


Mellish, R. J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Mellor, Sir J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Viant, S. P.


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wadsworth, G.


Mitchison, G. R.
Ropner, Col. L.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Molson, A. H. E.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Walker-Smith, D.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Scott, Lord W.
Warbey, W. N.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Scott-Elliot, W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Sharp, Granville
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)
Simmons, C. J.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Mort, D. L.
Skinnard, F. W.
While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Moyle, A.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
While, J. B. (Canterbury)


Murray, J. D.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Wigg, George


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Odey, G. W.
Smithers, Sir W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Oldfield, W. H.
Snadden, W. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Spence, H. R.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Parker, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Steele, T.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Pearson, A.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Perrins, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Woodburn, A.


Peto Brig C. H. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Woods, G. S.


Pickthorn, K.
Stokes, R R.
Wyatt, W.


Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
York, C.


Pools, Cecil (Lichfield)
Stross, Dr. B.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Studholme, H. G.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Popplewell, E.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith



Porter, E, (Warrington)
Symonds, A. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, M Philips
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A, (P'dd't'n, S.)
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES.


Ayles, W. H.
Hynd, J. B (Attercliffe)
Ranger, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Keenan, W.
Rankin, J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Longden, F.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Chamberlain, R. A.
McAdam, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Cove, W. G.
McGovern, J.
Scollan, T.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sylvester, G. O.


Dolargy, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Timmons, J.


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian.
Watson, W. M.


Gallacher, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Willis, E.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Paget, R. T.



Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Piratin, P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Pritt, D. N.
Mr. Emrys Hughes and




Mr. Carmichael.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Webb: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out "£25,000," and to insert "£20,000."
This is the manuscript Amendment referred to earlier in the proceedings. The effect of it is to reduce by £5,000 the amount to be granted to Princess Elizabeth. I am very glad that it has been

decided to call this Amendment, because it enables the Committee to consider this matter on the basis on which it was considered in the privacy of the Select Committee. That is the basis on which I think the Committee as a whole should consider it tonight, although, unfortunately, we have not in front of us all the evidence on which we in the Select Committee arrived at our judgment.
It has been suggested that unanimity in this matter is desirable. That has been my view since the beginning of this business. I sought in every conceivable way in the Select Committee to get unanimity. It is no fault of mine that we did not get unanimity. I deplore the way in which matters developed which prevented us from getting unanimity on the basis of the figure it fell to me to move. But more divides us tonight than the sum of £5,000. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) suggested that that difference was negligible. I think that one hon. Member used the word "ridiculous." If it is negligible and ridiculous, why did they not vote for my figure in the Select Committee? Indeed, if it is still ridiculous and negligible, why should they not go tonight into the Lobby in support of this Amendment?
Indeed, as they know, there are differences. We must assume that they decided to vote for the higher amount for reasons which were acceptable to them—solid substantial reasons. I myself, and those associated with me, voted for a lower figure for reasons which were equally solid and substantial. The difference is not merely in the figure. The figure has really become symbolic. The difference is between those who think that at this time the Court should proceed on the existing basis, and those who, like myself, think that at this time there should be some substantial and observable restriction of the existing standards of the Monarchy. That, I believe, is the essential point of difference. I take the latter view. The difference does arise in the mind of the public. It certainly arose in my mind and in the minds of my colleagues on the Select Committee. This difference was demonstrated by the actual figures on which we had to go to work.
I wish that it had been possible to effect what I regard as necessary restrictions in the existing standards of the Monarchy in some other way than the way we have been compelled to take in this Committee tonight. I deeply regret the way in which the matter has had to be developed in this Committee. I deeply and sincerely regret it. For my part, I wish that it had been possible for the Government and the King, in consultation, to agree, and to put before the Committee proposals

for running the new establishment of Princess Elizabeth on a more austere basis. If that could have been worked out and presented to the country, it would have made a deep impression and would have strengthened the Monarchy. It would have made it impossible for the Committee to have become embroiled in the kind of situation in which we are embroiled now.
I accept the view that the Monarchy, since it exists, must be conducted with dignity; but I am convinced, on the evidence submitted to us in the Select Committee, that it could be run in adequate dignity, without in any way diminishing what I regard as the proper standards of the Monarchy, on the figure which would result if this Amendment were accepted. It is unfortunate that one cannot speak about the evidence submitted in the Select Committee. I had the feeling that far too much public money granted in the Civil List seeps away in unnecessary salaries to hangers-on of the Court. I believe that all that needs very careful examination at this time. The Committee could well have taken a good deal of time over it, thought it out, and considered what was proper and desirable. But that was not possible. We had to undertake a very quick job of inquiry and examination. The only short way of doing it was by arriving at some compromise, middle figure. I think that that is unfortunate.
I take the view—and here again I cannot even say what sort of action I took on this matter because we are debarred—that the evidence might well be provided on which the House itself could form judgment. The Report itself states that different figures were mentioned. The House can well assume that these figures were widely divergent. My inclination was to take a figure very much lower than the figure which is the subject of this Amendment; but I actually moved the figure which we are now discussing and which appears in the Report of the Select Committee. I made that proposal as a compromise, in the belief that we could come out of that Committee with an agreed Report, with every party committed to it, thus presenting it to the country as an agreed conclusion representing the whole House of Commons.
It happened—and I deplore it—that we proceeded to discuss the final compromise at a lower rate. I felt that that


was the negation of compromise. I felt that it was an abandonment of what was fair and just between the conflicting points of view. I could not vote for a higher level; nor can I do that tonight. Therefore, having failed to get unanimity, I do not think that the matter can be left there if we are to do justice to public feeling. It is very difficult for us to form an accurate estimate of public feeling. We all tend to exaggerate our own knowledge of public feeling. We all tend to believe that the particular people among whom we move are representative of the wider public opinion, and we make mistakes in that field. I felt very desperately the nature of my position in view of the office I hold in the Labour Party. I took very great care indeed last weekend to ascertain, as far as I could, the point of view of the people I represent in Central Bradford.
I came away from that city in no doubt at all that the point of view I take is the point of view they would take. I have no doubt at all that the country at this time expects the House, in association with the Monarchy, to make some visible, evident, substantial cut in the provision of money for the maintenance of the Monarchy. If we had done that, I think it would have met the demands of public opinion. I am convinced that this Amendment is fully in accord with public sentiment. After very careful inquiry, my impression is that the country desires to retain the institution of Monarchy—I am quite convinced about that—but it desires the Monarchy to be simple, austere, and democratic. It desires some expression of the situation in which we all are, to be reflected in the establishments which are the instruments of the Monarchy. Thus, it requires at this time on this issue a practical demonstration of belt-tightening.
I think that by making this cut, if the Committee adopts my Amendment, although the actual difference between the two figures is small, we shall be making precisely that kind of demonstration. The figure which I moved in the Select Committee was the kind of gesture which the country would appreciate. It will be seen from the Report that £50,000 was the estimated figure of the requirements of the young couple. By reducing that figure by £15,000, which was my proposal, I believe that we should be making

the kind of demonstration which the country requires.
I ask for the support of all sections of the Committee, as a sincere and very earnest demonstration of our common will that even the most cherished of our institutions is not immune from the burdens which every household in this country has to carry at this time. These two young people have a very difficult job, and I do not envy them their job. I am in no sense attacking them or their integrity, and I am fully conscious of the difficulty in which this particular discussion will place them, but I do believe that, by accepting this Amendment, we shall be nurturing the highest principles of the Monarchy, which have been so well set by the King. Since this is a matter of principle, I ask the Government if they would, in the circumstances, and because of the difficulties in which we find ourselves on this occasion, permit my Amendment to be subject to a free vote. If they will, I commend it to the Committee and I ask the Committee to carry it.

6.21 p.m.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I do not think there is very much that can be said which has not already been said, but I feel that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has spoken with moderation, reasonableness and dignity. He and I were members of the Select Committee, and, as a matter of fact, I myself was also a member of the Select Committee in 1937 which recommended changes in the Civil List at the beginning of the present reign.
I do not agree with the hon. Member that the people of this country think that there ought to be any change in the standards or the general ceremonial aspects of the Monarchy. I think the people of this country are perfectly satisfied in every way with the Monarchy as it exists today. The hon. Member stated that he thought the time had come when the costs of the Monarchy should be very substantially reduced. Surely, the Prime Minister, in his speech, has already made it abundantly clear that the standards have been enormously reduced in recent years, enormously reduced, for example, as compared with Edwardian days. Not only are we proposing for the Heiress to the Throne today a much smaller income than was granted to Heirs to the Throne in the past, but that much smaller income


will itself purchase immensely less than would have been the case even a few years ago.
I was sorry to hear the only thing which I thought was not up to the standard of the rest of the hon. Member's speech when he referred to "hangers-on at the Court." There, again, the Prime Minister, who has more opportunity of judging these matters than I or any other back bench Member of the House, today gave it as his considered opinion that there were no hangers-on at the Court, but that those who had Court jobs and Court duties to perform had a full day's work and were in every way fully employed.
One aspect of this matter, which has already been referred to, but which I feel to be one of supreme importance, is the fact that the King is King not only of this country, but King of all the great Dominions of the Crown, and I feel that, if we have an acrimonious Debate here today, and if we are going to propose to the whole Empire that the whole standard of our Monarchy is to be reduced, it will be something that will redound not to the credit, but to the discredit of our country, and may be a very serious rift in the future unity and prosperity of the Empire.
There is just one other point to which I would like to refer. The hon. Member, at the close of his speech, suggested that there should be a free vote on this matter. I do not know what the reply of the Government will be. I am only anxious to see this proposal carried, but, at the same time, from a constitutional point of view, it would seem a most extraordinary thing for a proposal of this sort, moved by a prominent Member of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister and put forward as the Government's proposals for the future upkeep of the Heiress to the Throne, should go to a free vote of the House. In other words, if the Government were going to run away from the Vote, I cannot imagine that that would be in any way in accordance with precedent, or in any way the kind of thing which this House should reasonably contemplate.

6.29 p.m.

Miss Colman: Like the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) and other hon. Members who have

spoken, I very deeply regret the division of opinion which arose on the Select Committee, and we in the minority did our best to avoid it. Some of us who voted with the minority on the Select Committee, favoured a considerably lower figure than £35,000, but we agreed to that figure for the sake of unanimity and in order to secure a compromise. I, personally, am prepared to take the same course again, and I am prepared tonight to vote for this Amendment for the purpose of securing as unanimous a vote as possible and as a compromise.
May I correct a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of his opening speech? The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the minority on the Select Committee would have been prepared to agree to £10,000 for the Duke of Edinburgh if the £35,000 had been accepted for Princess Elizabeth, and that would have meant a difference of only £5,000 between us. May I express my own opinion here that I personally was not and am not prepared to grant the £10,000 for the Duke of Edinburgh, even if the allowance for Princess Elizabeth is reduced to £35,000, and, therefore, so far as I am concerned, the difference is not £5,000 but £10,000.
In speaking to this Amendment, I want to make it perfectly clear, as other hon. Members have done, that my attitude indicates no lack of support for the Monarchy and the Royal Family. In fact, I agree with the view which has already been expressed, that the proposals put forward by the Government are likely to injure the popularity and prestige of the Royal Family. I take that view very strongly, and, equally strongly, I disagree with the opinion expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood), that we are quibbling about £5,000 or £10,000. Our objection is not to the cost to the nation. I have heard the statement made that this annual allowance works out at about a farthing a head of the population. As I say, the objection is not to the cost to the nation; the objection, in my mind and in the minds of many with whom I have discussed this matter, is to the great gulf which this allowance represents between the manner of life of Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, and that of the mass of the


people. That is the question of principle in our minds and not, may I repeat it once again, the cost to the nation.
I have taken very careful steps to ascertain the views of members of the public. The noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said that all the people outside this House who opposed the proposals of the Government are members of the Communist Party.

Earl Winterton: I did nothing of the sort. I said something which is quite different, and in which I persist—that the agitation emanated, in the first instance, from the Communist Party.

Miss Colman: When the noble Lord reads HANSARD tomorrow morning he will find that his statement was a great deal more definite than that. But, if he wishes to amend it——

Earl Winterton: Those were my actual words. Quite obviously, the hon. Lady does not know the meaning of the word "emanated." For her benefit it means that the origin of this agitation is Communist.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I think it is necessary, Sir Robert, that I should say here that the Communist Party is not paying the right hon. Gentleman for advertising it.

Miss Colman: The noble Lord very easily loses his temper, and it is very usual for him to say things which are extremely cheap. Whether he made the, statement which I thought I had quoted correctly, or whether he made the statement which he now says he made, will be shown in HANSARD tomorrow, but, whichever statement was made it is entirely wrong. The people in my division who expressed their opinion on this matter—not to myself, and not on my suggestion—are certainly not Communists, and are not influenced by the Communist Party. In order to show that I do understand the meaning of the word, neither have their views emanated from the Communist Party. They are ordinary people—shipyard workers, journalists, shop assistants, housewives and others—and in the very careful inquiry I have made, not only in my division, but elsewhere, I find that popular opinion, in general, is one of respect and affection for the Royal Family. At the

same time, I find that there is a very strong feeling for greater simplicity, for less ceremony.

Earl Winterton: Nonsense.

Miss Colman: I am stating the opinion as I find it. The opinion as the noble Lord finds it may be different. The noble Lord mixes in different circles from those in which I mix.

Earl Winterton: I fought for my country.

Miss Colman: I live in a working-class area and I know the opinion of the working people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no good hon. Members opposite making those extraordinary noises. I express opinion as I find it. I notice that hon. Members opposite approved when I said that the opinion which I find to be common is that of respect and affection for the Royal Family.

Mr. Hogg: Because it is true.

Miss Colman: Very well then, why contradict the other statement which I made, and which came from the same people? Why should one be correct, and the other incorrect? The answer is, of course, that hon. Members opposite agree with one and not with the other. Therefore, I am telling the truth when they agree, but I am not telling the truth when they disagree. I will repeat, Sir Robert, the second part of the information I have secured, and which does not meet with the approval of hon. Members opposite, is that the desire of the ordinary people is that there should be greater simplicity and less ceremony in the life of the Royal Family, and that the Royal Family should give a lead to the nation in the direction of greater simplicity and less ceremony.
May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford by saying that, in particular, people with whom I have discussed this matter strongly object to the waste of manpower in court circles. I would like to refer once more to the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham. He said—and I hope I am quoting him correctly this time—that we do not want to lose the colour and pageantry of ceremonial.

Earl Winterton: Earl Winterton indicated assent.

Miss Colman: I am glad that I have quoted him correctly this time. My opinion is that we can keep the colour


and pageantry on ceremonial occasions, but that, on other occasions, we can have the greater simplicity and less ceremony for which I am asking.
I will conclude by saying that I strongly believe that the strength of the Royal Family in this country lies not in its remoteness from the people, but in its nearness to the people. It has come nearer to the people, very much nearer than it was not so very long ago, but I believe that still greater simplicity would still further strengthen its hold on the affections of the people. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think there has been a little misapprehension on this matter in the very reasonable and well expressed speech with which the Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb). As I understood him, his argument was that there should be a diminution in standards so far as the Royal House is concerned, in view of the economic emergency at present affecting the country. But the proposal before the Committee is not one which is limited to a particular period. It is aimed at the whole reign, and, surely, it is an excess of pessimism on the part of hon. Members to assume that a period of austerity and economy is likely to continue for the whole of the reign of his present Majesty. In any event, as far as the next four years are concerned, no charge will fall on public funds, in view of the announcement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was authorised to make on behalf of His Majesty. The period with which we are concerned is a period of more than four years hence, and leading to the end of the reign. Surely, all the emphasis expressed by the hon. Member—and on the previous Amendment by other hon. Members—regarding the austerity being inflicted upon the people of this country today is beyond the point. We are asked to legislate for a period by which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would hope that, at any rate, the severer part of our austerity will have come to an end.
There was emphasis upon the reduction of standards in connection with the Royal House. I do not want to touch upon

controversial subjects, but that reduction appears in striking contrast to the whole tendency as regards other parts of our political and administrative system. I make no complaint whatever of the increases voted, not only to hon. Members, not only to no less a person than the Prime Minister, but to other public officials. I believe it is foolish and unwise to underpay persons in high and responsible positions, and it is rather curious that hon. Members opposite—or some of them—should be so anxious to lower standards when those standards are of the Royal House but quite willing to accept the raising of standards throughout every other part of our political and administrative system. We of course accept it, when an hon. Member states that his expression of this view is coupled with respect and loyalty to the Royal House. But may I be permitted to say that it is a curious expression of that respect and loyalty to single out them, and them alone, for austerities demanded by the situation.

Mr. Gallacher: We are all living in it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Central Bradford frankly put the view that he was not concerned mainly with the £5,000. He was concerned, as I understood it, with the symbolic importance of that £5,000. He explained his attitude as being a supporter of this Amendment, not because he worried about the £5,000, but because that Amendment had a kind of symbolic importance. If the hon. Member is looking for a symbol of that sort, it is to be found in the Report of the Select Committee of which he was a Member. That Select Committee has recommended a figure lower than the one put to it by the expert witnesses called before it. If the hon. Member is seeking for some gesture of economy it can be found in the findings of the Select Committee. It seems to be labouring matters, and making very heavy weather indeed if, on top of that reduction which the Select Committee was agreed about, he urges a further reduction. All hon. Members must agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that it is impossible for any hon. Member of this Committee to budget precisely on this particular matter.

Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order, Sir Robert, I want to


know if it is in Order for any hon. Member of this Committee to refer to the evidence before the Select Committee?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Further to that point of Order, Sir Robert, I submit that the figure was mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without objection by your predecessor, and it appears in the Report.

Mr. Scollan: That is the very reason why I raised the point of Order—because it was objected to when the Chancellor was making his statement.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Surely the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. How can a person who is not a Member of the Select Committte divulge what was said in front of the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): The evidence is not before the Committee. I do not know what was the Ruling given before I came in, but the hon. Member must not trespass upon it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I respectfully invite your attention, Sir Robert, to the paragraph on the first page of the Report in which that figure is specified? The Report has been presented to the House and includes that figure, which I have quoted, and which, quite properly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that I am entitled to refer to that figure.

The Deputy-Chairman: I thought the hon. Member was referring to the evidence. If the figure is in the Report, he is in Order.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It being perfectly true, as the Chancellor has said, that it is quite impossible to budget to a few thousand either way, the symbolic gesture which the hon. Member for Central Bradford requires can be found in the Report of the Select Committee. The majority of the hon. Members who accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee includes the leaders of all three parties and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of very great experience in public administration. I hope I shall not be thought discourteous to the minority if I say that the names which appear in the Report as being among the majority are names of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of much greater experience and knowledge of these matters.
Surely, therefore, the reasonable course to follow is to accept the advice tendered to this Committee by the experienced majority on the Select Committee. The hon. Member for Central Bradford can be well satisfied that the point he had in mind has already been made, and the pursuing of this Amendment, and pressing it to a Division, can serve no useful purpose—certainly not the purpose he has in mind. It can only amount to asking this Committee to reject the decision of the majority of the experienced and responsible Members of the Select Committee upon an important matter, the very subject matter of which make it so difficult for hon. Members of this Committee—who have not seen the evidence—to come to a reasoned decision. If the hon. Member persists in pressing this matter he will put hon. Members on both sides of the House in a position of some difficulty. We have not got the evidence and we can only accept the view of the majority of the Select Committee, who did hear the evidence, who represented all three parties, and who came to a very definite and reasonable conclusion.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: I am sure that many hon. Members must feel, as I do, a very great regret indeed that the Select Committee were not able to resolve their differences and come before us with an agreed set of figures. I feel a certain embarrassment in seeking to discuss this matter at all, although I am sure that my embarrassment is slight compared with the embarrassment of those whom we are discussing. I am glad, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) put forward his Amendment so reasonably, and I am sure that no one will complain about the way in which he stated his views.
I wish, quite briefly, to submit my point of view on this matter. Now that figures have been mentioned, whatever we may say about the objects of the allowances under discussion, we are inevitably involved in discussing a difference of £5,000 per annum or, if the second allowance is involved, a difference of £10,000 per annum. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford said, in effect, that we are discussing whether the Monarchy shall proceed on the existing basis. If we take into account the lower purchasing power of money today, compared with


what it was only a few years ago, it must be agreed that the standard set years ago on the same amount certainly cannot be maintained by the allowances proposed today. I would counsel those who support the Amendment and who wish to reduce the amounts proposed by the Government, to bear in mind that those amounts represent a lower scale of emolument than would have been thought appropriate years ago when money was much more valuable. In my view, we cannot afford not to agree to the higher amounts, because to reduce them would lower the credit of this House in the eves of this country, and the credit of this country abroad. If we reduced these allowances by £5,000 or £10,000 a year we might be involved in the position which was visualised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) who suggested that the Dominions might contribute towards these allowances. We might suffer the humiliation of having that amount offered to us in order that we could do what I am sure the Dominions believe is the right thing to do for those whom we are discussing.
I feel that in view of all that is involved, and bearing in mind the need for maintaining the credit of this country, we must not be regarded by other countries as being so down-and-out that we have to quibble over an expenditure of £5,000 or £10,000 a year. Therefore, whether we have a free vote or whether the Whips are put on, in the interests of the credit of this House and of this country in the estimation of the Dominions and of other nations, I feel it will be my duty to vote for the higher figures proposed in the original Motion.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I want to refer briefly to two points in the well-expressed and sincere speech of the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb). They seemed to be the main grounds on which he based his case, and I believe his reasoning was entirely false. He told us that public opinion in his constituency was completely against the higher figure. I can well understand that he might have received that impression, because public opinion upon this subject is utterly uninstructed. Public opinion really does believe that an income of £50,000 is purely a personal income to be spent on oneself.

We have had the case of an hon. Member who had no idea at all that travelling expenses had to be paid out of their Royal Highnesses' income. That being the case, I can well believe that an impression of that kind could have been received by a Member of Parliament making inquiries of that nature in his constituency. I have had the same experience in my constituency on the subject of salaries of Members of Parliament. People believe that £20 a week is a very high salary indeed for a Member of Parliament; they have no conception whatever that there are expenses involved. I think that is very much a parallel case.
The second point in the hon. Member's speech to which I wish to refer is his statement which he stressed—I think he said it three times—that he felt it his duty to oppose this Motion because public opinion is against it. When have Members of Parliament followed public opinion instead of leading it? I think that is a shocking reason for taking a bad course of action for which there is no case, and I very much hope that this Amendment will be rejected.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Nally: I want, first of all, to refer to a valid point which was made by an hon. Member opposite who referred to the fact that, by and large, the majority of the Select Committee were persons older in age and experience than the minority. That seems to indicate one of the differences which exist in the Committee generally. As far as I know, the youngest member of the Select Committee was my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb), and I think it is not without interest that he, the youngest member of the Committee, should have expressed with complete sincerity his faith and belief in a constitutional Monarchy. It is not without significance that he should have led this particular minority group within the Select Committee, because there are enormous differences between the attitude of what I can best describe as the younger generation in all parties towards the Monarchy, and that of the older generation.
The difference is not necessarily one of years, but of approach. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite would be prepared to accept this statement, but I


give my word of honour that it is true. During the last few days I discussed this matter with a friend of mine, younger than I am, who is an official of a Conservative Party association. He expressed to me precisely the views which were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford. It was felt that, whilst having regard for the constitutional Monarchy, there was plenty of room for greater simplicity and for less extensive ceremonial, carried over so long a time.
The suggestion has been made that this proposal, if it is accepted, involves hardship on the Royal Family. It involves nothing of the kind. What we have in mind is not a proposal which involves trimming down what the Royal Family itself spends. We have in mind—and there is some reasonable certainty about it—that there is an outer circle which surrounds the court where extensive pruning could be carried out in the public interest and in the interest of the Royal Family themselves. There is much that emanates—if I may use the term—from the palaces or royal residences which I am perfectly certain is not fully in accord with the wishes of the Royal Family themselves.
To give an illustration of what I mean—and it is purely an illustration and I do not think it is out of Order—it will be recalled that during the war Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth, was enlisted in a unit of the A.T.S. That was a very nice thing, accepted by all as a splendid gesture at that time. Before it finished, however, it was badly handled. Stories were put out that Her Royal Highness was to undergo training like everybody else, with the nearest sergeant adjacent to that unit, and everybody in the newspaper world, in contact with this, knew the story was phoney. It must have been a source of great embarrassment to the Royal Family themselves, because clearly in the nature of the case it was rank hypocrisy to say that Her Royal Highness—she may have wanted to; I do not doubt that for a moment—could simply go through the normal process.
Equally objectionable to the mass of the ordinary people of the country, irrespective of their political views, was the nonsense that was circulated, and which arrived on the desks of newspaper offices, attempting to prove that at the time of Her Highness's wedding her applica-

tion for clothing coupons had gone through the usual routine and had been dealt with by the usual clerks; that somebody had sat down and decided in this particular instance whether the application should be granted or not. Everybody knows that did not happen. Why should we pretend? I am not suggesting that it should have happened. That is the kind of thing we are attempting to protest against tonight.
There is another point on which I should like some information, if it is available. I have been given two figures as to the annual cost of upkeep of Clarence House which I understand is to be the new residence for the Royal couple. One figure was £12,000 per year, irrespective of capital expenditure. Another figure was
16,000 a year—in upkeep for that one place. I agree that we do not know the entertainment responsibility, although we know it is considerable, that the Royal couple have; but I do not care how wide the obligations are in that particular field, I find it difficult at this time to justify an expenditure of £6,000 per year upon what is, after all, one house. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment. I appreciate the point raised by an hon. Friend of mine that it may well be that this reduction in the allowance will create some difficulties among sections in the Dominions and that they may make some offer. I am not altogether certain that would be a bad thing. I would like to feel that the Dominions took an even closer interest in these matters of providing for the adequate and proper maintenance of the Royal Family. I do not see that there is anything bad about it.
I ask the Committee to believe that there is as much loyalty, affection and regard for the Royal Family, as individuals, on this side of the House as there is on that side. There may be a little more. One of the things which infuriates me is the positive cruelty of the present state of affairs. These two young people have been placed in the worst possible kind of position, where practically most of their lives is determined for them by others; they will not be able to go out shopping, or go out walking, without being surrounded by crowds, where the whole of their lives will be the negation of liberty. It is from that point of view that many of us take the attitude of which this Amendment is symbolic. I ask the Committee to give the support for which


my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford has asked.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) has said, although I was not absolutely certain that I saw at every stage how he related it to the issue before the Committee. In regard to his last remark, I feel that the answer to what he said about positive cruelty, and the limitations on the Royal Family in that way, is simply that the Royal Family, like all of us, are seeking to serve the country in their own way, and the limitations of which he spoke are their particular burden. We all have our particular burdens, but if we seek to serve our country in our own way, we do not tend to regard them as burdens, but more as labours of love. I do not think we need feel sentimentality about it, beyond the ordinary feelings of loyalty and affection, when we discuss the peculiar position in which members of the Royal Family find themselves.
I want to make a special appeal to hon. Members opposite who happen to disagree with me, and I think I have a right to do so because it is relevant to the arguments which have been presented. Some months ago we had a Debate on the subject of our own salaries and, as hon. Members will remember, I took some part in that Debate. We were faced with almost exactly the same arguments as those with which we are faced today. It was said that we ought to tighten our belts, at a time when everybody else were tightening their belts, and that we ought to show an example. It was suggested that we could not expect a man getting 26s. a week, or even a disabled soldier, to view with complacency a Member of Parliament earning £20 a week. I resisted that argument then and I resist it now. I resist it for the same reason—that this is fundamentally not a reasonable argument to present. Hon. Members, in dealing with their own salaries, faced the fact—and I think rightly—that we were dealing with the upkeep of a public office with dignity and efficiency.
That is what we are dealing with today. We are not discussing whether the Royal Family will live a life of luxury or austerity. If we were, I should be saying that they are already an example to us

in personal simplicity and austerity, and if we could be as certain that we lived as restrained a life in matters of personal comfort as they do, we should be doing very well.

Mr. Nally: I think the hon. Member will agree that there is a difference between the question of Members' salaries and the particular matters we are now discussing in this respect, that when we were discussing Members' salaries we had before us all the relevant information upon which it was possible to pass judgment. In this case, the Committee has not the relevant information upon which to pass judgment, and, therefore, we are in a difficulty.

Mr. Hogg: In view of that difficulty, the conclusion I draw would be that the hon. Member should be slower to say that the Select Committee is wrong, and not quicker.
I was saying that this is not at all a question of the personal style in which the Royal Family live. Theirs is one of notable restraint and austerity. The real question before the Committee is exactly the same as that we had to deal with on the question of Members' salaries—how a public office can best be discharged with dignity and efficiency. In response to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Colman), who stressed the matter of dignity, I would say that, of course, a man can be dignified on a very small salary indeed. It is not wealth which makes dignity. But what we want in the discharge of a public office is not merely dignity but efficiency. I think that the whole of the argument which has been presented to the Committee both on this and the previous Amendment, and particularly by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, is really conclusive—that in order to discharge these great public functions efficiently, as well as with dignity, the higher salary is, in fact, the sum which is required. If the hon. Member had asked me, "Did I think, on the whole, that it would be to the advantage of the Royal Family that all the evidence should be published?" my answer would be, "Yes, I think it probably would be." I should think what would follow from that would be that we should get a much bigger majority and a much more nearly unanimous Committee in favour of the higher figure.
I am convinced, from everything which has been said, that in order to discharge this public function efficiently, the higher figure is required, and I am fortified by this consideration. I thought that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth was wholly at fault when she talked about the great gulf which separates the Royal Family from the people. I do not think there is such a gulf, nor do I think any gulf there might be consists in the fact that they have to discharge important public functions, with aeroplanes and special trains, and other things of that kind. It is not those things which can keep a Royal Family from the people; but they are the things which cost money. We are bound to face the fact that in almost every department of public expenditure, expenditure has gone up. Anybody must have noticed that. We had to make special provision for the Prime Minister. We had to make special provision for a Minister to fly across the world; a very large sum was spent on a single aeroplane for that purpose. We have to make allowances for increases of expenditure of all kinds. In this whole case, even if the majority view of the Select Committee be accepted, we are not merely not making an increase, but we are actually making a smaller provision than in days when costs were very much lower than they are now.
For these reasons, I must say that I thought it was in a sense lamentable that the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth should have used the expressions which they did. The hon. Lady seemed to imply that the splendour of the Royal Family was much greater than it should be, and was something which should be cut down. I think that the people like a bit of colour and want a bit of pageantry. I cannot myself see the romanticism and mysticism of Royalty "rationalised"—to use the expression of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain). When he made that speech, I had a horrible vision of a Treasury official saying that the French Ambassador, when entertained to lunch, must be given Australian burgundy. I had a vision of things that really do not bear contemplation.

Mr. Chamberlain: I did not suggest that the persons concerned should be

rationalised; only that the system should be rationalised.

Mr. Hogg: It is precisely the system which I should prefer to be left to the experience and public spirit of the persons concerned. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was so conclusive on that point. As in the case of an ambassador, or some public functionary abroad in a republican country, there are whole areas of expenditure in which the element of discretion is so flexible that it would not be possible for a Treasury official to exercise proper control without making either the office shamefully squalid or the person perfectly ridiculous. I prefer, therefore, to see this great public office discharged, as it has been discharged, with a measure of colour, with a measure of pageantry, at a cost very much lower than has ever been the case before, and by people who command the affection and respect of the whole of the community.
In passing, let me say that I think that we all feel—certainly not only those on this side of the Committee, but just as much those who are in support of the Amendment as those who are against it—that our dominant feeling for the Royal Family is not loyalty, nor affection, nor respect, but love. We do, in a sense, love them in this country. Our whole attitude towards them is one of love. Even our jealousy of some of the aspects of their public duties which has been displayed tonight is a facet of that. I believe that the right conclusion is to couple generosity with love and to give what the greater part of the Committee desires.
There are only two more things I want to say. The first is this. The hon. Member for Central Bradford tried to introduce an element of what he described as "symbolism" into this Amendment. For the life of me I could not understand what he meant in this connection. I can understand that there was symbolism in the last Amendment. I can understand hon. Members like the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) attaching a symbolic significance to the last Amendment, the object of which was to remove this provision altogether. But I cannot for the life of me see how any element of symbolism can attach to this particular Amendment, in which we have


to choose between the figure of £35,000 and the figure of £40,000, when as a matter of fact the Select Committee, composed of the leaders of all parties and the highest dignitaries in the House have come to the conclusion, not as a matter of pure affection, but as a matter of purely objective consideration, that the figure of £40,000 is the only one which will enable the persons concerned to do their work efficiently.
There is only one other remark I want to add. I want to join my protest to that of the right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) against the suggestion that there should be a free vote of the Committee. Normally, as a Member of the Opposition, I am always urging the Government to have free votes, but I am also, I hope, not merely a Member of the Opposition but a Member of His Majesty's Opposition, and I do protest against the notion that, in a constitutional monarchy, His Majesty's Ministers are entitled to run away from their duty of supporting what they think proper provision for the monarchy whenever their back benchers tell them they do not like it.
I am bound to say that, if this were left to a free vote, I should regard it as one of the grossest betrayals of the Constitution I could remember in my time in the House of Commons, quite irrespective of what the result of the Division may be. In a matter of this kind, which affects the dignity and the discharge of one of the most important offices of the State, it is the business of the Government to make up their minds what they consider to be right; and when they have made up their mind what they consider to be right, in my submission their duty is to tell the Committee what they consider to be right, and to ask their hon. Friends—in the technical sense of the word—to support them in their course. If they are also supported by hon. Gentlemen who are not, in the technical sense, their hon. Friends, all the better for them. But nothing could be more cowardly, nothing could be more politically immoral, nothing could be more unconstitutional than, having formed their views of what is right, that they should allow their hon. Friends, in the technical sense to tell them it is all wrong, and that they should run away from their duty to the Monarchy, which is to be loyal to it. For these reasons, I hope, not merely that

this Amendment will be rejected, but that the Government will stand firm in this matter and not allow themselves to be dictated to by anybody.

7.21 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the Committee Would like me to reply now in order that we may come to a conclusion. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has dealt with the question put to me by the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb), as to whether there would be a free vote on this matter. This is, of course, essentially a House of Commons matter, and not one in which the Government intervenes. His Majesty sends a message to the Commons; the Commons have their own Select Committee on the Civil List, of which, by chance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was appointed Chairman, on the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and that Select Committee reports to the Commons. This being essentially a House of Commons matter, prima facie the hon. Member for Oxford would not ask to have the Whips put on. I can quite understand that from a party point of view he may, on a particular occasion, feel that it is convenient to take the other line; but looking at it as a good Parliamentarian, as I am sure he is, a matter which is primarily the duty—and the very particular duty—of the House of Commons as a whole is not one on which it is suitable to put on the Whips. If there are genuine and honest differences of opinion upon some matter which the Government do not regard as one of principle, that is a suitable matter for a vote of the House according to its reasoning and responsibility.

Earl Winterton: No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give precedents for that action, which I should have thought was unprecedented. I may be wrong, and there may have been instances in the past when the Government have taken the line he has suggested—that it is not constitutionally the business of His Majesty's Government, in the full power which the Government have, to ask the House of Commons to support a proposal for emoluments to the Crown. No doubt he will quote precedents.

Sir S. Cripps: No, I certainly shall not quote any precedents at all. There may


be some or there may not. I have not had the opportunity or the time to look them up. What I say is that the Government may support, as I have supported in introducing it, the Report of the Select Committee, as I, as chairman, have supported the views of that Select Committee. The noble Lord asks the Government to support it with all the means in their power, which means that he wants us to put on the Whips. I believe this is a case in which it is not only feasible but desirable that the Committee should express its views freely. From the point of view of the recipients of whatever grant is made, they would infinitely rather feel that such grant was made by the free will of the Members of the House of Commons than by the compulsion of a party Whip imposed upon them. I think that should be a decisive determination, if such a request is made by the minority of the Select Committee—and, after all, that is what it comes to—in order to express their views, and to test in this Committee whether they are really the majority or the minority, as they were in the Select Committee.
Having said that, I turn to deal with the merits of this difference of opinion. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford said, I cannot see that there is any difference of principle here. By the mere figures in the Report itself, it is quite clear that everybody agreed that there should be more simplicity and economy than there has been in the past. That is apparent on the face of all the figures. The only question is: should it be a simplicity and economy measured by £10,000 or by £15,000? There can be no principle in whether we economise out of £60,000 by £10,000 or by £15,000. It can be said that as a matter of principle one would like to see a different standard of expenditure so far as the display and entertainment of the Monarch is concerned. For instance, it might be said that we should do away with the horses, which constitute a very expensive item, and are used only once or twice a year. They cost £15,000, or whatever it is, because they have to be kept every day of the year. But I venture to think that if someone were to say, "Here is an easy economy; let us do away with all the horses," the public would be up in arms

against the loss of this sight which they have so rarely that it pleases them.
Therefore, one really is not dealing with any question of principle here, but with something quite different, namely, the estimate of different hon. Members as to what they think will maintain the efficiency and dignity of this office. They have all stated—and, I know, have stated with complete sincerity—that they want the duties of the office carried out decently and with efficiency; and they recognise that it is an office and not a mere payment to private individuals. To hon. Members who take the view—if I may put it in this way—that we are spending too much by £5,000 on this particular office at the present time, in view of the financial difficulties of everybody else and of the country, this also must be said, that the grant which we are getting from the King will pay that £5,000 difference for 20 years. Thus, this is a question whether in 21 years' time we shall be paying £5,000 too much, because the rest is covered and does not fall on us at all.
I am sure the hon. Member for Central Bradford would agree that if he thinks £35,000 is the right sum, he and I would have voted for it whether or not the King had granted £100,000. We are grateful for that grant of £100,000, but it is immaterial to the merits of the case. All we are doing here is postponing the extra £5,000—assuming now that the hon. Member is right and I am wrong—till 21 years' time. It is not a question of principle, whether in 21 years' time the Princess and her husband—perhaps then, we hope, with a large family—will require
£5,000 more or less. I really would not like to wager on the value of money in 21 years' time. I only say that because, with all these great uncertainties, we must bear in mind that this is not a grant for one or two years. Unless something happens which we hope will not happen, this is a grant, anyway until the children reach the age of 18; that will be the next occasion—unless circumstances alter—when the question of a grant will come up again.
This is a long-period grant. We are, we hope, somewhere near the bottom of the wave as regards the low value of money, and are, therefore, justified in saying that the economy of £10,000 from the estimate which has been made is a reasonable economy. It emphasises the


fact that the Select Committee, and those who voted in that way in that Committee, think that there should be some reduction of standards, some greater simplicity; and they have signified that by this alteration of the estimate down to the lower figure.
I hope that, in these circumstances we shall be able, without any great difference of opinion, to get through this matter, and to finalise this problem. I am most grateful to hon. Members on all sides of the Committee for the extremely earnest and good-tempered way in which the whole of this discussion has taken place. What-

ever the result of it may be, I feel that we have got through this Debate without anything having been said which will cause any distress to these two young people. They will realise that we are all anxious to do what is right, although our views about what is right may differ. I am anxious, therefore, that the Committee will not insist upon making the change contained in this Amendment.

Question put, "That '£25,000' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 165.

Division No. 52.
AYES.
[7.32 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Hurd, A.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Digby, S. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Donner, P. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Janner, B.


Attewell, H. C.
Dower, E. L G. (Caithness)
Jay, D. P. T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Drayson, G. B.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Awbery, S. S.
Drewe, C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Bacon, Miss A.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Baldwin, A. E.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Barlow, Sir J.
Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Keeling, E. H.


Bartlett, V.
Dye, S.
Kendall, W D.


Battley, J. R.
Eccles, D. M.
Ken, Sir J. Graham


Baxter, A. B.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Key, C. W.


Beamish, Mai T. V. H.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
King, E. M.


Beechman, N. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Belcher, J. W.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Bennett, Sir P.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Kinley, J.


Berry, H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Erroll, F. J.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Binns, J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lang, G.


Birch, Nigel
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Follick, M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H.


Boothby, R.
Fox, Sir G.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Bower, N.
Gage, C.
Linstead, H. N.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lipson, D. L.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Braithwaile, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Gammans, L. D.
Low, A. R. W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Brown, George (Belper)
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gibbins, J
McAllister, G.


Buchanan, G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Burden, T. W.
Granville, E. (Eye)
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Butcher, H. W.
Grey, C. F.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Gridley, Sir A.
McEntee, V. La T.


Byers, Frank
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Callaghan, James
Grimston, R. V.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Carson, E.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Challen, C.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Channon, H.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hannon Sir P. (Moseley)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Collindridge, F.
Hare, Hon. J H. (Woodbridge)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Head, Brig, A. H.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Marlowe, A. A. H


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marples, A. E.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Marquand, H. A.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hobson, C. R.
Marshall, D. (Bodimn)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Howard, Hon. A.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Davidson, Viscountess
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mayhew, C. P.




Mellor, Sir J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Molson, A. H. E
Roberts, Major P. G. (Ecclesall)
Teeling, William


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Morley, R.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Ropner, Col. L.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)
Sanderson, Sir F.
Tolley, L.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Scott, Lord W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Moyle, A.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Touche, G. C.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Sharp, Granville
Turner-Samuels, M.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Usborne, Henry


Nicholson, G.
Shephard, S. (Newark)
Vane, W. M. F.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Wadsworth, G.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Walker-Smith, D.


O'Brien, T.
Simmons, C. J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Odey, G. W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Paget, R. T.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pearson, A.
Smithers, Sir W.
Wilkins, W. A


Peto Brig. C H. M.
Snadden, W. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Pickthorn, K.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Popplewell, E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Price, M. Philips
Steele, T.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Pryde, D. J
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl




Woodburn, A.


Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
York, C.


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Stross, Dr. B.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Sludholme, H G.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith



Renton, D.
Sutcliffe, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rhodes, H.
Symonds, A. L.
Mr. J. J. Lawson and


Robens, A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S)
Mr. Benson.




NOES.


Acland, Sir R
Donovan, T
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Longden, F.


Alpass, J. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lyne, A. W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McAdam, W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGovern, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Ewart, R.
Mack, J. D.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Fairhurst, F.
McKinlay, A. S.


Baird, J.
Farthing, W. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Balfour, A.
Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.


Barstow, P. G.
Foot, M. M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Barton, C.
Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bing, G. H C.
Gallacher, W.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gilzean, A.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bramall, E. A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mikardo, Ian.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)
Monslow, W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Grierson, E.
Moody, A. S.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Champion, A. J.
Gunter, R. J
Mort, D. L.


Chetwynd, G. R
Guy, W. H.
Nally, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Hale, Leslie
Naylor, T. E.


Cobb, F. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, G. H.


Coldrick, W.
Herbison, Miss M
Orbach, M.


Collins, V. J.
Holman, P.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Colman, Miss G. M
House, G.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.)
Parker, J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paten, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)
Peart, T. F


Crawley, A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Perrins, W.


Daggar, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Piratin, P.


Daines, P.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Pritt, D. N.


Deer, G.
Leonard, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Delargy, H. J.
Levy, B. W.
Randall, H. E.


Diamond, J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Ranger, J.


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Reeves, J.







Richards, R.
Stubbs, A. E.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Swingler, S.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Sylvester, G. O.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Royle, C.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Sargood, R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wigg, George


Scollan, T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Segal, Dr. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Shurmer, P.
Tiffany, S.
Willis, E.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Titterington, M. F.
Woods, G. S


Skinnard, F. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wyatt, W.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Viant, S. P.
Yates, V. F.


Solley, L. J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Zilliacus, K.


Sorensen, R. W
Warbey, W. N.



Sparks, J. A.
Watkins, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stamford, W.
Watson, W. M.
Mr. Corlett and Mr. McGhee.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That it is expedient to amend the provision made by Section eight of the Civil List Act, 1937, as to that one of His Majesty's daughters who, in the event of Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth predeceasing His Majesty, thereby becomes his eldest surviving daughter, so as to restrict the application thereof to any period during which that one of His Majesty's daughters is Heir Presumptive to the Throne."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

Resolutions to be reported tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Report [5th June, 1947] from the Select Committee to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Ede.]

Report considered accordingly.

7.47 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: On a point of Order. Would you give a Ruling to the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to the extent and nature of the discussion you will allow on this Select Committee's Report? You will notice that the Select Committee's terms of reference were somewhat restricted. I am wondering whether, in the present discussion, you will allow a rather wider latitude than is contained in the Select Committee's Report. For instance, the Report deals with the Members' Fund. Some hon. Members gave evidence before the Select Committee, and some of the evidence was ruled out on the ground that it was not within the terms of the Committee's——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think that the report to which the hon. Member refers is not the Report of the Select Committee. It is the additional document presented to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think, therefore, that I cannot give any precise Ruling as to the scope of the Debate at this moment.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Would it be in Order for Members to discuss the whole question of Members' pensions on this Report?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members must restrict themselves to the question of the Report, consideration of which has been ordered by the House.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, should be amended in order to extend its scope and to provide for increased payments and altered contributions.
I would like, at the outset, on behalf of the Select Committee and, I hope, the House, to express our gratitude to those persons who have been charged with the administration of this fund since its inception in 1939. The terms of reference of the Committee were somewhat narrow, in that the Committee were charged with the responsibility of endeavouring to equate—if I might use that term—income with expenditure. That meant that the Committee had to receive evidence, and arrive at a decision within the narrow scope of those terms of reference. I would like to emphasise that there has been, and is, a considerable amount of misapprehension about the nature of this fund. In the Press, and in the White Paper issued by the Chancellor, the fund has been referred to as a "Members' Pension Fund." It was never a Members' pension fund; it is actually a benevolent fund, and nothing more than that. We owe this fund to the interest and human sympathy which have always been evidenced in this House, and, more particularly, to the late Earl Baldwin, to whose memory we paid our respects on Monday, to the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and to the late Mr. H. Lees-Smith.
The fund was established for the purpose of endeavouring to assist ex-Members of Parliament or their orphaned


children who might, from time to time, be overcome by adversity. The trustees, who have done excellent work, have, of course, proceeded along that line, and as a result of the evidence submitted to the Select Committee, the Committee were convinced that the fund has been of extreme value to no fewer than 30 recipients, most of whom were ex-Members of this House. Some of these ex-Members have passed away, and some of their dependants are now benefiting from the fund. It is very pleasing, as Members who have examined the proceedings of the Committee will note, to see that the fund has, at present, a balance of about £50,000. The trustees felt that with the increasing cost of living, and such a surplus at their disposal, it would be desirable to come to the House, and ask for powers to increase the amount of benefit that should be paid from the fund. Under the existing machinery, the trustees may make the income of an ex-Member up to about £4 a week. But that does not mean that all ex-Members are getting £4 a week; their resources have to be taken into consideration, through a means test. Those who have read the Report of the Committee will appreciate that we recommend that that allowance should be increased by about £2 a week, which means that the recipient will be permitted to receive up to £6 a week, after the resources which he may have, have been taken into consideration.
The Committee felt that nothing should be done to discourage thrift. That being so, they have recommended that what is good for the ordinary citizen should be equally good for the ex-Member of Parliament, in this sense: There is operating at the moment the Determination of Needs Act, which provides that certain disregards should be taken into consideration by the trustees. If an ex-Member and his wife have been able to acquire their own house, that should not count against them in getting an allowance from the fund. Again, the possession of war savings should not count against an ex-Member. So, through the Determination of Needs Act the trustees, who have been charged with the administration of the fund, have to take these disregards into consideration. We are all indebted to the Chancellor for the White Paper which has been issued; it is valuable and helpful. As the fund is a benevolent fund, with

a means test, and not a pension fund, it is impossible to place it on an actuarial basis. Because of that, the White Paper can only be a guide.
We have a surplus of £50,000, but hon. Members must bear in mind that the professional actuaries always work with a considerable margin with which to play. That is all right with a statutory pension fund, but when persons make application for grants and most of them have personal resources which must be taken into consideration, we must depart immediately from considering these matters upon an actuarial basis. Therefore, I do not want hon. Members to pay too much attention to what the actuaries have said. The Committee may have taken actuarial advice, but we thought that it was better to work upon the experience of the trustees who have administered the finances. At all times it is possible for the trustees to come to the House and ask for reconsideration of the conditions or the principles upon which the fund is administered. We therefore deemed it much preferable to proceed as hitherto. If, as a result of the recommendations, the fund becomes sorely depleted, a further appeal can be made to the House for reconsideration of the scheme.
I want to make a special appeal to hon. Members for elasticity. The trustees are now compelled to ask for the original Act to be amended when they come to the House, before they can depart in the slightest degree from the principles embodied in that Measure. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to consider—I hope this suggestion will receive the assent of hon. Members who are present—embodying in the new Bill an escalator clause so that the trustees would be able to ask the House to pass a resolution for raising or lowering the contributions, rather than for an amending Act which would have to go through all its stages. It would then be easy for the trustees to take action if they felt that the fund was becoming dangerously depleted or becoming unduly large. If something on those lines could be adopted, it would mean smoother working and greater satisfaction to all concerned.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: The hon. Member has suggested an escalator clause for contributions. Would he apply the same suggestion to benefits as well?

Mr. Viant: For the time being I appeal to the House to adhere to our recommendations. We have given reasons in the report why they should be adopted. Our greatest concern has been in regard to the contributions. A large number of new Members have not experienced what we have known in the past. Those of us who have been here for 20 years know what it has meant to pass the hat round when adversity has overtaken our colleagues, but that has given no satisfaction. After we had raised £100 and handed it to the widow, she was forgotten when that money was eventually exhausted. Under the scheme she is never forgotten. That is the important point. I hope we shall be prepared to accept the recommendations of the Select Committee and to urge the Treasury to insert a clause in the new Bill to give the House power to raise or reduce contributions as circumstances require, by means of resolution alone.

8.6 p.m.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: I very much welcome the opportunity of saying something about the House of Commons Members' Fund. The expenses of the fund are covered four times over by the contribution which everybody makes. Every Member contributes £12 per year to the fund and we are investing £9 of it and using, roughly speaking, only £3. That is thoroughly unsatisfactory. In the autumn of 1945 I succeeded Sir George Courthope as chairman of the trustees. As soon as I saw the position, I got busy to get something done. We presented a return in July, 1946, showing the enormous amount of money that we were amassing and the small proportion which we were paying out. That was less than five months after we had presented our 1944–45 accounts.
Shortly after we had made that financial return, I asked the Leader of the House, on Business, in July, 1946, when we would have an opportunity to deal with the matter. He said he hoped it could be dealt with after the summer Recess. I suppose that was October or November last year—and it is only tonight that we have the opportunity to discuss the matter. I have pressed continuously to get something done, and I am glad that at last we are succeeding in putting this matter upon a sound basis.

The difficulty is that in order to do anything at all, we must do it entirely by Act of Parliament. We cannot do anything by Resolution of the House, but by Act of Parliament which must go through all its stages. Government time is required, and everybody knows how closely the Government have to safeguard their time.
Delay is undesirable. The trustees know how well more money could be spent. I hope that we shall get unanimity on the Report of the Committee, of which the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) was chairman, because then we shall get legislation. I urge the Government to act quickly. I know it will take Government time, but I would point out that we have been waiting a long time. I have from time to time over a period of two years been talking to different people, and everyone has different ideas about the matter. The hon. Member for West Willesden, who moved the Motion, put it quite clearly. We do not want to forget the idea for which this fund was started. It was to help people who, through ill luck or ill fortune, have fallen on evil days. To try to do something else with this fund would alter its whole basis. It is a fund to try to help ex-colleagues or their widows, who have fallen into times of financial straits.
I hope we shall get agreement in accepting the Report of the Select Committee, which was presented last July. I am glad to see the Financial Secretary in his place, because after the Report was presented, but before the Debate tonight was promised, the Government actuary was asked to make a report on the proposals. I was not on the Select Committee, but I gave evidence. All these proposals were carefully considered and worked out, and I was really amazed when I saw in the Paper which was presented last Friday that the Government Actuary suggested, instead of an annual amount of £9 from each Member, that it should be £21, and the Actuary thought that the reserve of £55,000 should be got up to £150,000. That sort of thing is absurd, especially when we remember that only 17 beneficiaries are receiving grants from the fund—eight ex-M.P.s and nine widows. That is a very small number of people. The £21 contribution, about which I will speak in a minute, is much too high. All we want to keep


in mind is that under the Act the subscription of £12 which we pay is not a charge in Income Tax, so, of course, the amount is very much greater, and if a Member happens to be paying the high grade of Surtax, it is much greater indeed. I do not know whether any Member of the House is paying the top rate of Surtax, but if he is, it means that the gross amount he has to produce is £428, which is far too high, especially when a man in that position is unlikely to draw on the fund.

Captain Marsden: Not only the man who is a millionaire, but people like myself with a naval pension will never get benefit from this fund; but we have got to pay to it. We can never be so hard up as all that.

Sir C. MacAndrew: In my notes the next subject heading is "officers," but the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) took my speech out of my mouth, and has made the position perfectly clear. I have taken the extreme case of the Surtax payer on the top grade, but there are men such as my hon. and gallant Friend who pay their money year after year by Act of Parliament, and whatever happens they cannot get anything out of the fund. It is a pity to ask such hon. Members to pay £21 a year, and I think £9, as suggested by the Select Committee, would be sufficient.
The reserve fund, which is now £55,000, seems to be pretty good when we look at the number of beneficiaries. In addition to the reserve fund, we are absolutely certain of £12 per Member, and £9 under the new proposals going in all the time. What has happened in recent times is that we have been far too well off, and I am so ashamed of taking money as a trustee from hon. Members here and only using about one-fourth of it. The Government must seriously consider this position. We all know the difficulty that there is of getting legislation introduced, and securing the time for it from the Government. However, new legislation will have to be introduced to alter the present Act, and I hope that when it is the words suggested by the right hon. Member for West Willesden when he moved this Motion, to the effect that by a Resolution of the House of Commons the contribution can be varied up or down, will be inserted.

By doing that we immediately do away with all this necessity for an enormous reserve fund. It is quite unnecessary, and this suggestion is not only simple, but really quite practicable. It would take very little time to put a Motion on the Order Paper. I do not know whether the trustees or the Government would put it down, but if we want two or three more pounds from the Members, I do not think there would be any objection, and certainly there would be no objection if we decided to ask for two or three pounds less. I think this thing would work well. I have talked to hon. Members of all parties, and I have not found anyone against doing it in that way. I sincerely hope the Financial Secretary will take note of what I say in that regard.
There is one further small point I should like to put, and that is with regard to the Government Actuary's Report. Under Section 3 (5) of the present Act, every five years the Government Actuary has to make a report on our affairs, and it is very expensive. We have got to get our accounts audited in any case by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and this report which the Government Actuary makes is extremely dear. In March, 1946, in my capacity as Chairman of the trustees of the fund, I appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is Chairman, and my right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that we were paying £279 for a Government Actuary's report which is absolutely and totally unnecessary. People like ourselves are trustees, and if hon. Members do not like us, they can discharge us and appoint others in our place, but as long as we are trustees we are able to invest money in trustee funds, and when the accounts are audited there can be no possible mistake.
The opinion of the Government Actuary is no better than mine, and perhaps not as good. It is just a waste of money, which could be as well spent on the deserving cases which come before us time after time. I assure the House that it is really unpleasant work dealing with the sad cases of our friends, and it makes me so annoyed to think, not only of the outlay going on, but what money could be saved in such a case as this. The thing was tied up quite unnecessarily to start with, because this is entirely a


domestic matter of our own, and it is our own money with which we are dealing. If we cannot trust half a dozen of our own Members to look after a fund such as this, it is a poor outlook for the wisdom and sense of the House of Commons.
There is one more thing I should like to say. It may be out of Order, but perhaps I shall be excused. I should like to say what a tremendous help the trustees got from the officers in the Fees Office, which is in Mr. Speaker's Department. The accountants there are most helpful and mast kind. They do a great deal of work dealing with these various cases, and I should like to put on record how much we appreciate what they are doing for us.

8.20 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): It has been thought that perhaps it would be beneficial if someone from the Treasury Bench spoke now. If the Debate continues and it is desired that a further speech should be made from this Box my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at a later stage of the Debate. We have had two excellent speeches, which are all the more excellent because they have given me something upon which to bite. It occurred to me earlier that the White Paper and the facts there set forth were so reasonable in argument and conclusion that the House would accept what was there said without very much Debate. It now appears that certainly two hon. Members ask their fellow hon. Members to reject what the actuary has said and to follow the recommendations of the Select Committee in their entirety.
The Government regret that this matter has taken some months to reach even its present stage. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew) has devoted many hours to this Fund since he took over the chairmanship. I know how dear it is to his heart and how impatient he has quite naturally been during the last year while these matters were under discussion and while the White Paper was being produced.
As we have been told by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) the

House appointed a Select Committee last February to examine and report on the financial position of the Members' Fund. The present Debate has been arranged so that we may discuss that Report with the White Paper. We are anxious that this Debate should give the Government some idea what hon. Members are thinking. This is a domestic, non-party, nonpolitical matter and the Whips will not be on if a vote is taken. If it is the general feeling that legislation be introduced, the Government will then know in advance what hon. Members are thinking and what they desire to be done.
What were the recommendations of the Select Committee? They were that we should raise the maximum yearly sum payable to an ex-M.P. from £150, which it is at present, to £250, so long as the 250 does not bring his income above £325. The present ceiling, above which no help can be given, is £225. All will agree that that is very low. The present maximum rate of annual payment to widows of ex-M.Ps. is £75, and the Select Committee suggest that that should be doubled, making £150, so long as it does not bring the widow's income above £225. The present income limit for a widow is £125. By today's standards that also is a very small sum. The suggestion is also made that something should be done in certain circumstances either for the children of one spouse, or if both parents are dead, for the children who are left completely orphaned. A further recommendation is that the present £1 a month which we pay, making £12 a year, without any allowance therefrom for Income Tax purposes, should be decreased to £9 a year.
Those who have read the White Paper know that the assumptions which the Select Committee have made in coming to these recommendations are not accepted by the Government Actuary, who indicates that the figures are far too optimistic——

Sir C. MacAndrew: There may be an actuarial assessment of how many of us are likely to lose our seats and how many are likely to die, but no one has the slightest idea what our incomes may be. It is absolutely impossible to come to any actuarial basis. How wrong they were the first time proves that.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That may be the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I


do not quarrel with him for holding it. This is a domestic matter and the Government want to find out what hon. Members think about the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden expressed a view very forcibly. I took his words down. I could scarcely credit them. Apparently the hon. and gallant Member agrees with him. He said that because it was a benevolent fund it was impossible to place it on an actuarial basis——

Mr. Cove: Quite right.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: —and that the actuaries wanted a considerable margin with which to play. They do not. I hope to return to that subject in a few minutes. My immediate point is that there is here a direct conflict of feeling. The Select Committee want to take the thing more or less on the run because there is at present a substantial surplus. The accounts will not be out for a month or two but I understand, though it is not for me to say but for the trustees, that it will amount to something like £55,000. The evidence is that £12 a year is too high a contribution for the amounts now being given. It does not follow that as we have all this money we should reduce the contribution and almost double the grants. As I hope to show in a few minutes other considerations have been touched on by the Actuary which the Government would ask the House carefully to take into account.
I have gone into this fairly carefully and as I understand it the Select Committee's calculation is as follows. At the moment we are 640 in number but it is expected that we shall go back to 615 and it may, well be—I do not know—that our numbers will be even fewer. As far as we know it will be the number which obtained before certain electorates were divided as a temporary measure at the end of the war. If we go back to a House of 615 Members and if we take the Select Committee's contribution at the figure of £9, the income per year would be £5,475. To that must be added the interest on the investments, which amounts to £1,150, making a total income to the Fund of approximately £6,625. At present those to whom grants are given year by year—I hesitate to use the word "pensioners" because they are not pensioners in a strict sense—amount, I understand, to nine widows and eight ex-M.Ps. The Select

Committee take the number who were in receipt of grants from this fund before the Dissolution and add to it the number who went on the Fund after the Dissolution. They then make certain additions to provide for possible extra sums which may have to be borne in respect of children and people who may come on the Fund if the ceiling is raised. In addition, in order to give good measure, they assume that another five will come on the Fund at the full rate of £250, at a total charge of £1,250.
Taking all these factors together, the new rates and the lower contribution, they estimate that grants in the course of a year would run to £6,200 and that the expense of administration might amount to another £200, making £6,400 in all. If you take £6,400 from £6,625, it leaves a credit balance of £225. In a fund of this sort with all the intangibles for the future which are quite admitted, I defy any hon. Member to say that a difference of only £225 of income over expenditure is not far too small a margin, even for those who do not want us to follow actuarial advice and simply want to spend the money as it comes in.

Sir C. MacAndrew: The right hon. Gentleman names a big figure but the Actuary can have no more idea than the man in the moon what it would be, whereas the last published accounts—and I will be accurate this time—show that £2,162 15s. 1d. was all we spent. If you double that, we would be well under his figure.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have no desire to be unfair. If the hon. and gallant Member will turn up the Select Committee's Report, he will find in paragraph 25 that the figures I have given are there, and that they are brought together again, though not in tabulated form, in paragraph 29. If I am not wearying the House, I will read paragraph 29. It says:
The income from contributions from 65 Members"—
It means 615 Members—
at the new rate would be £5,475 a year, so that the total annual income from contributions and investments would be at least £6,625"—
Exactly the figure I have given——

Sir C. MacAndrew: Yes.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It goes on:
leaving a margin of £225 a year beyond the £6,400 a year which Your Committee have allowed for expenditure.
Therefore, I am only taking the figures given by the Select Committee. As I have already said, this expenditure by way of annual grants takes into account grants to individuals which may not occur. If we turn to paragraph 7 of the White Paper, we find that the Government Actuary comments on these experiments in arithmetic by the Select Committee. He points out, and in my view very properly, that this fund has only been running for eight years. I would like to add that six of those eight years passed with no election because of the war. Unfortunately this is the only period by which we can judge, but the last eight years were not normal years at all. People stayed on in the House and some died who, if an election had come earlier and times had been normal, would have retired and might possibly have come on this fund. Therefore, we must remember that, whether we like Government Actuaries or not, whether we accept their advice or refuse to accept it, we ought, when dealing with a fund of this kind to have some sort of data to go by. It is essential that we should know where we are, even although the fund is our own and we have nobody to account to except ourselves if we get too many on it at any one time and it runs out.
I am told that the actuaries hold the view that if this fund runs long after our time, as time goes on and experience is gained, the fact that now we have only 17 or 20 beneficiaries is nothing to go by. The actuaries have had considerable experience of superannuation funds and such matters. If their experience is anything to go by, in about 40 years time there may be anything up to 60 or 80 beneficiaries on the fund. Even in the next few years there are likely to be more than there are now. If we do what the Select Committee asks us to do, we should do it with our eyes open and we must not imagine that the numbers coming on the fund in the next few years will be the same as the numbers who have come on to it up to now. Times have not been normal, and we cannot form any idea until the fund has settled down.
The actuaries also say that we need not worry about the drop in the rate of

interest. Hon. Members who have looked at the fund and noticed that apparently the average yield per cent. is 3 per cent. should not be guided by that. The actual yield per cent. overall, deposit and invested, works out at something like 2.6 per cent., and the Government rate is now 2½ per cent. We may assume that so long as we keep the reserve going, interest thereon at a rate of 2½ per cent. would bring in something around £1,400.

Sir John Mellor: Is not the rate of long term borrowing 3 per cent. now?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am talking about this fund, and saying that the overall yield works out at 2.6 per cent. We have no feelings about this. I am trying to put the facts to the House, so that they can judge what they want done tonight, or in the coming weeks. We need not worry at the moment about the fact that interest rates have fallen. As the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) who, like myself, has been interested in a number of superannuation funds, knows, one of the greatest headaches is that many of the funds were built on the assumption that the return would be 3 per cent., or 4 per cent. Now they can only be invested at 2½ per cent.
When we try to project ourselves into the future, and to discover who may come upon the fund, I agree that we are completely in the dark. At present, we have a fairly young House, and, if this were an ordinary superannuation fund, the younger Members would be of the utmost benefit to a fund of this sort, because their contributions would go on until they were 60. But we cannot assume anything of that sort here. When the testing time comes in 1950, it may be that the young will be taken, and the old left. The present average age of the ex-M.P.s is 70, and of the widows 63. In the actuarial tables we find that the average expectation of life of the widows is another 17 years, but it is nothing like that in the case of the ex-M.P.s.
I now wish to deal with the alternatives which the actuaries have laid before us. They are to be found at the bottom of page 3. First, they deal with the present scales. With the present maximum pension of £150 to ex-Members, with an income limit of £225, and, in the case of widows, a maximum pension of £75


with an income limit of £125, and with an annual contribution of £9, as is proposed by the Select Committee, they show that a reserve of something like £60,000 would be required in order to make the fund really solvent. I hope that hon. Members follow that if the Select Committee's proposal to give a maximum pension of £250, with an income limit of £325, and a £150 maximum pension for a widow with an income limit of £225, were adopted, then a reserve of £150,000 would have to be built up over the next 20 or 30 or even 40 years.

Mr. Osbert Peake: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "they"? Does he mean the Select Committee?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, I am dealing with the actuaries.

Mr. Peake: The Government actuaries?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In the White Paper, there is a table which the Government Actuary places before us, which gives the various suggestions which have been made op to now, first—the present scale of benefits, with a proposed contribution of £9 per year, and then the new scale proposed by the Select Committee. According to the Actuary, if these higher rates of benefit are to be paid, it will be essential for a payment of something like £21 per year to be made per Member. A reserve fund of something like £150,000 would be built up. The interest on this, would be needed to supplement the contributions paid. The Government Actuary has worked this out and says that, if the fund is to be solvent, and we are to be sure of paying pensions to those who are likely to draw upon the fund at that time, this rate of annual contribution, and this reserve will be essential. If the £21 per year is felt to be too much, and I will give reasons why it may be so considered, particularly as we get no Income Tax allowance in respect of it like anyone else——

Dr. Morgan: Why?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The short answer to my hon. Friend's question is that when this Act was passed in July, 1939, it was felt that Members should be in no sense beholden to the taxpayer, even for

a rebate of tax on the contributions which we made to this fund. That was the reason given, and it was accepted by the House. It has been the rule and, in fact, the law, ever since.

Dr. Morgan: Surely the Treasury can act differently, and say that this is a legitimate expenditure by a Member of Parliament, as a contribution to the Members' Fund, which should not be chargeable to Income Tax?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That can be done in the case of ordinary superannuation funds if such a fund has received from the Inland Revenue certain assurances that they recognise it as a superannuation fund for Income Tax purposes.

Sir C. MacAndrew: We get Income Tax relief on investments. It is upon contributions that we get no rebate.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Act specially lays it down that we should get no Income Tax allowance upon the contributions we pay. Until that Act is amended, the Treasury can obviously do nothing to allow Members any Income Tax rebate.

Lord William Scott: Or Surtax. How much is that on the highest rates of income?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have not worked that out, and it would be difficult to do so. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern, gave a computation. According to him, if I heard him rightly, it is something like £500 in respect of Income Tax and Surtax to those who are paying the highest rate of 19s. 6d. in the £.
I would draw the attention of the House to the two alternative schemes which the Government Actuary has worked out, and which Members might like to consider. Suppose that the £9 contribution is felt to be too low, and that the £21 contribution, which the Select Committee's suggestion would involve is too high, the Government Actuary gives two middle courses which we might follow, which are described as A and B. I do not want to go into this in detail. In passing, however, I would direct the attention of hon. Members to those two schemes. In one case, it would mean that for £12 a year we could give slightly better rates than are now being given under the existing Act. If we were willing to go to £15 a year, the rates


Would be appreciably greater. It will be for the House to look at these, and any other schemes which they feel worthy of consideration, in order to arrive at a proper and just solution.
If this matter is taken to a Division, the Government are happy that the vote should be a free one. Hon. Members should exercise their own judgment irrespective of party on this matter, but I would remind the House of three things. First, the present rate of contribution of £12 was fixed at a time when we received a salary of £600 a year. If the £20, or the £21, suggested by the Actuary as the proper rates of contribution are agreed to, we should remember that we now get £1,000 a year instead of £600. The percentage increase is not as great as one would imagine. I think that the ratio of £20 to £1,000 is about the same as the ratio of £12 to £600. I have not worked it out exactly——

Dr. Morgan: But prices have gone up.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I know that. If Members could afford and agreed to pay, as they did, £12 on a salary of £600, it might not be beyond the bounds of possibility that they might now agree to pay in order to have these higher rates of pension. On the other hand, I must remind the House that from next July we all become self-employed persons. Therefore, those of us who are young enough, come within the terms of the National Insurance Act, 1946. That will mean that we shall have to pay a year contribution. It is true that we will get tax allowance on the But if we have to pay £15, in addition to £20 for the Members' Fund, it might be considered rather too high a sum altogether. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that when they have paid contributions for 10 years, like any other people, hon. Members will be entitled in due course to a retirement pension of 26s. a week. That will help a little, but not very much, because if the present ceilings persist, the retirement pension will help to diminish the amount that beneficaries may get from the Fund.
I would like to deal with a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute about what I think he described as the rather heavy charge by the Government Actuary for the work he did. He

did two things. He made a special report in January, 1943, on the suggestion to increase widows' pensions. The charge for that, which I think was not unreasonable, was £84. Then he made a statutory Report which was published in July, 1944, dealing with the quinquennial valuation of the fund. That cost £195. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not think it was unnecessary, because my information is that it was absolutely essential and could not be avoided. If it is agreed, then obviously the next question which arises is whether it was a fair sum to charge.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. It has to be done under the Act, I agree, but I think it is quite unnecessary, because it is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General as well.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I was only trying as best I could to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's charge, and the first point which I tried to make was that he said it was unnecessary. I am trying to show that, whilst from one point of view it might be held to be unnecessary because the work did not mean anything, looked at from the Government's point of view, it was an obligation which was laid on the trustees by the Act and was therefore necessary. I would remind the House that this Report did involve a considerable amount of work, and it was undertaken during the war by senior staff, the junior members being away at the front or on work of national importance. We are certain that, although the amount may seem a lot to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it is, nevertheless, very reasonable indeed in view of the amount of work involved.
I am sorry I have occupied far more time than I intended. I have given to the House what we think is the right approach to this matter. We realise, and I think the whole House realises, that the present rates of benefit are too low and that something should be done to raise them. Although it is for the House to decide, many of us do not agree with the Select Committee's recommendations to lower the contribution and to raise pretty steeply the amount of benefit paid. We do not think that this would be a wise thing to do, and we hope that the House will find some middle course which will be acceptable to all concerned.

Mr. Peake: We have had from the Financial Secretary a fairly lengthy explanation of the attitude of the Government. I was one of the Members of the Select Committee, which was composed of Members of all parties, many of them very experienced Members, who served under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant). That Select Committee arrived at a unanimous report, and there was no difference of opinion in the Select Committee at all, and I hope that this House, in a purely domestic matter, is not going to be dictated to by the Government Actuary. Our terms of reference were:
To examine and report on the financial position of the House of Commons Members' Fund, and to make recommendations with a view to achieving a closer relation between the sums paid into and the payments made out of the said Fund.
We had to look at the financial position of the fund, and that is what, in fact, we did. We did not consult the Government Actuary, because we thought his opinion would be of very little value. In the first place, the grants made by the fund are not pensions at all; they are compassionate grants made to persons in need. They are not pensions in any sense of the word. When, in the Government White Paper, pensions are referred to, that is quite the wrong term to use.
We came to the conclusion that the existing conditions should, in general, be maintained, that is to say, that the age of 60 should be a condition of a grant, or, alternatively, if below that age, that the applicant should be incapable, by reason of infirmity, of earning his living. We also adhered in our recommendation to the period of 10 years' service in this House to qualify for a grant. We also made the valuable recommendation, to which the hon. Member for West Willesden referred, that, in applying the tests necessary to establish the means of the applicant, the trustees of the fund should apply the same sort of tests as those applied to ordinary citizens who apply for public relief.
I think that all these recommendations are perfectly reasonable. I confirm the view of the hon. Member for West Willesden, who moved this Motion, that it is quite hopeless to try to get an actuarial calculation of what the liabilities of this fund are going to be. There

are far too many imponderables for that to be capable of assessment. From the previous reports which the Government Actuary has made on this matter, it is perfectly clear that no precise assessment of the future can, in fact, be made. Who, for example, can say how many Members of this House are likely to lose their seats at the next General Election? Who can estimate how many of those hon. Members will be over 60 years of age?

Mr. Guy: There will be 25 fewer seats on the redistribution.

Mr. Peake: It is tolerably clear that there will be some 20 or 25 fewer seats under the redistribution; but, after it has been decided how many ex-Members there are going to be, we shall then have to calculate what their ages are, going to be, and then, again, proceed from that point and try to estimate what their means are going to be. It is perfectly clear that no calculations can be made as to what the calls on this fund are going to be in the future. What has, in fact, proved to be the case is that, so far, the income of the fund has exceeded by three or four times its disbursements.
I am quite convinced that it is reasonable to increase the benefit payments in the way proposed by the Committee. The cost of living has increased since the war, and I am quite sure that the figures proposed by the Select Committee are fair and reasonable figures. When we come to the question of contribution, it surely must be right to keep the contribution as low as possible, for this reason, if for no other, than that there are many hon. Members who can never, under any circumstances, qualify for a payment from the fund because they are already in receipt of a pension—it may be a Civil Service pension, an Army pension, or something of that sort—which carries them above the figure of means below which they could make application to the House of Commons Members Fund. As there are some Members who can never, under any circumstances, become a charge upon this fund, it is surely reasonable, in the general interest, to keep the contribution as low as possible.
In arguing the case put forward in the Government White Paper for the much higher rates of contribution suggested by the Government Actuary, the right hon.


Gentleman said that the assumptions of the Select Committee are not accepted by the Government Actuary. But I would say that the assumptions of the Government Actuary are not accepted by the Select Committee. What are the assumptions of the Government Actuary? If hon. Members will look at paragraph 12 of the White Paper, we are told there:
It should be explained that throughout his estimates the Government Actuary has adopted the view expressed in the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1937, that in the grant of pensions"—
he calls them pensions, which is a completely false assumption—
regard should be had to their capital value, the contribution being so fixed as generally to enable the full capital value of each pension to be set aside in the Fund at the time when the pension is awarded.
That accounts for the staggering figure, described as the "ultimate fund required," of £150,000, in the sixth column of the table, set out in page 3 of the White Paper. It is envisaged in the Government Actuary's calculations that at the time each pension is granted there should be a sufficient capital sum in the fund to produce interest sufficient to pay a pension for the whole of its duration. I say that is a perfectly fantastic conception, for this reason. Apparently it is anticipated that, at some future date, either the House of Commons may decide that all contributions shall come to an end, or it may be assumed, I suppose as a risk, by the Government Actuary that this country will come under a Fascist or Communist dictatorship, which will prohibit any future contributions by hon. Members to a fund of this character. I say that that is a fantastic assumption. This House is going to continue, and hon. Members will continue to contribute what is necessary from time to time to meet the needs of the Members' Fund. This building up of a huge capital reserve, sufficient to make each pension secure, even if all contributions came to an end in the future, is a fantastic proposition.
We have already got no less than £55,000 in reserve in case the fund should operate at a deficit of a few hundreds, or even a few thousands, for a few years. That fund could be drawn upon until the contributions have been adjusted. It is a fantastic assumption which is made in this White Paper that we have to have a

capital reserve equal to the claims which may become payable by the fund.

Dr. Morgan: Some of which never will be paid.

Mr. Peake: I quite agree. I think it should be absolutely clear also that there is no contribution here from the public funds. This is a domestic matter of the House of Commons. We are so meticulous about this that we do not even allow ourselves to charge the £12 a year as expenses against our Income Tax, as we should do if we made a similar contribution to any charitable fund. We are an autonomous body. This is a House of Commons matter, pure and simple. There is no money from the Exchequer, and the Financial Secretary has no more right to speak in this matter than any other Member of this House.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Neither has an ex-Financial Secretary.

Mr. Peake: I quite agree. I speak as a Member of this House, and also as one who sat on the Select Committee which investigated this matter. I most strongly advise the House to assert itself in this case, and not to be dictated to by the Government Actuary, but to adopt the proposals recommended by the Select Committee.

9.5 P.m.

Mr. Mathers: I am glad to have an opportunity of taking part in this Debate. If we all followed the practice tonight of declaring an interest, we would all be prefacing our speeches with some remarks about the position in which we are placed vis-a-vis this fund. Of course, it concerns all of us, and my own position is this: I am doing my level best, day by day, month by month and year by year, to disqualify myself from participating in this fund, and I am sure that is the object and desire of most hon. Members.
I well remember the circumstances which I believe were responsible for the setting up of this fund. Those circumstances arose in the great Labour débacle of 1931, when so many Labour Members were defeated at that Election of regrettable memory. I remember the anxiety of those of us who were defeated. Some of us went safely back into jobs which


immediately put us in the same position as we were in when we first came into Parliament. That was my position, thanks to the generous treatment accorded by a private enterprise railway company, and thanks particularly to the excellent relationship between management and staff which enabled those conditions to apply to members of the railway company's staff who had been elected to Parliament. They were allowed to retain their membership of the railway company's superannuation fund, and when the misfortune of political defeat came along they went back to work and were immediately reinstated in the positions which they held prior to their election to Parliament.
One of the assets that I have, and by which I hope to avoid ever becoming a beneficiary of the House of Commons Members' Fund, is my membership of the railway superannuation fund to which I started contributing last century. I feel quite a Methuselah when I recollect that I started contributing to that fund in December, 1900. When the débacle to which I referred took place, and when so many Labour Members were defeated in 1931, quite a number of them found themselves out of employment and with very slender resources. Those of us who were able, tried to assist by putting our hands in our pockets, but we realised that we could not adequately alleviate the position of our unfortunate colleagues who had been defeated. It was heartrending for us who were so anxious to do something for them, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House contributed to the effort that was made at that time to meet the needs of those defeated Members.
I rejoiced when in 1937 there was set up the Select Committee which finally arranged the opening of this fund in 1939. When the fund was set on foot, I remember thinking that on the basis of the contributions at that time—£12 a year—it might have been possible for the benefits to be more generous. That idea has proved correct, because we have built up on the basis of the contributions and withdrawals a surplus which we are now told by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew) is in the region of £55,000. I feel, in relation to the proposals from the Select Committee, that a lack of generosity is still shown. I think it is regrettable that there should be any idea at all of cutting down the

contribution of £1 per month. I believe the £12 contribution should stand and that, on the basis of the £12 contribution, there should be an endavour to be more generous than is possible on the contribution of £9. I do not think anyone—especially those who had the experience to which I referred of seeing colleagues in 1931 in such sore straits—would hesitate for a moment to continue paying £12 a year. Indeed, they would be glad to pay a higher contribution if it were necessary, for the sake of colleagues and for the sake of the credit of this House and those who have been Members of it.
The amount given as being attainable in payments to Members could even now be more generous than the Committee set out to achieve. Much has been said about the Actuary's Report and I agree with those who claim that this Report should not be taken too seriously. I know actuaries feel they must base their calculations upon absolute certainties. The only way they can do so in connection with a fund of this kind is by over-estimating to a very great extent indeed. I believe the calculations they have made will be falsified in the event. In any case, even if there were any possibility of the income of the fund not meeting the needs of those who became beneficiaries; this is a live fund and this is a live institution; this is a great human assembly, and when we get together on matters of this kind all party differences disappear and we get down to the needs on a real human basis and are willing to pool our resources in order to deal with a matter of this kind.
I hope it may be possible on the basis of the £12 contribution—which, I think, should be continued and certainly not reduced—to make even better allowances than those proposed by the Select Committee in their Report. After all, these are not days of high purchasing power and the allowances which are proposed are not high, certainly not unduly high for those who have incurred the responsibility of being Members of Parliament and thereby, not through their own seeking, have put themselves in a position which involves expense and commitments and a style of life they would not necessarily adopt if they were merely civilians and not representatives of the public in this House.
Do not let us take the Actuary's Report too seriously. Let us realise that we have


freedom, and can take freedom to keep this fund alive by adding to its resources at any time we wish. I was attracted by the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern, that we should provide in the new Act of Parliament which will be necessary in order to change this fund, opportunities of doing that in a more easy way by bringing an affirmative Resolution before the House, and passing it without all the formality of a Bill. I look forward to the day when there will be the possibility of giving a certain minimum payment without any question of a test of need. That would justify those who feel that they are paying something away and getting no personal return. Even if it were only £50 a year to start with, that would pay a golf club contribution, or something of that kind, and be quite useful to Members in their days of retirement. It might be larger than that; a fixed sum that could be drawn without any question of need arising. On top of that, there could be, of course, bigger allowances made for those who proved need. It might also be taken into account that a fund of this kind involves a payment which is in fact a charitable payment, and at least part of it might be reckoned for Income Tax relief.
I want to deal with one point which seems to have been dragged into the Committee's Report by the scruff of the neck. It appears to have no connection with the purpose of the investigation. I refer to paragraph 32, concerning grants to former Members of the House of Commons who become peers. Whoever goes from this House to the House of Lords must necessarily be there for the rest of his life, because one cannot resign from the House of Lords. Once a peer always a peer. In Scotland we talk about "Aince a bailie, aye a bailie," when one becomes a magistrate. It seems, however, to be assumed by the Committee that anyone who goes from this House to the House of Lords goes to a place where there is complete immunity from all worldly ills for ever and ever. It seems to me that anyone going to the House of Lords is just as likely to fall on evil days——

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): Is my hon. Friend contemplating going there?

Mr. Mathers: I was careful to disclose my interest in this fund, but my interest in it does not extend to any consideration of going to another place though my political opponents continue to prophesy that I shall go along the passage to another place. As a matter of fact, in recent times they have based the bulk of their propaganda and organisation on the supposition that that event is always about to take place. I wish now that I had not been led into that line, Mr. Speaker.
This Members' Fund is intended to maintain, in dignity and decency, one who has ceased to be a Member of the House of Commons. That does not necessarily mean that directly a Member leaves the House of Commons he becomes a beneficiary under the fund. It means that at some time in his life, having qualified by ten years' membership and contributions to the fund and having attained the age of 60, he is entitled, on the basis of need, to be considered for an allowance from the fund. That can happen just as easily to someone who has gone to another place as to someone who has gone out into business. This particular prohibition on hon. Members who go to another place is a flaw in the scheme, and unless some sound explanation can be given for its presence, I must enter a protest against such a provision being included in the rules of the fund, as they will exist after the changes have taken place.
Those are the observations I felt it desirable to make upon this Report and upon the Actuary's Report. I support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden, which is intended to amend the Act in order to extend its scope and to provide for increased payments. I hope that anything in the way of altered contributions, which are also mentioned, will not mean contributions being altered in a downward direction.

9.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: It is a refreshing change for the House to be discussing financial arrangements which make no impact upon the taxpayer, and to have the opportunity, for once, of discussing monetary matters which fall only upon those of us who sit or have sat in this honourable House. The Financial Secretary—who, I am sorry to say, is not here to hear


me say this—seemed to put in the way of the Report of the Select Committee obstacles which had already been removed largely by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew). I thought the objections of the Financial Secretary were met almost entirely by the proposed escalator arrangement. The flexibility of power of the trustees would, surely, be capable of ironing out such changes and circumstances as the right hon. Gentleman indicated.
It so happens that I was a critic of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939. I thought it was a slipshod Measure, put through the House in a slopshod fashion. For the benefit of hon. Members who were not with us then, I would remind the House that the Committee stage of that Act was taken during an all-night sitting in July, 1939, when the clouds of war were already gathering, and when our minds were fixed upon other matters. Like all business done under those circumstances, the House alternated between the facetious and the irritable. The shaping of the Bill in Committee was not, in my view, performed according to the best traditions of the House. I am very glad, therefore, that a Select Committee has now reviewed the circumstances. We are indebted to the hon. Member for West Willesden and to his colleagues for the amount of work they have done, and for the very concise report which is now before us. For that reason, I support the Motion now before the House, and hope that we shall take the course suggested a little later.
There are two main alterations in the circumstances since the 1939 Act was passed. They have both been referred to earlier. They are the crux of the whole matter; that is the vast alteration in the value of money, and the raising of the salaries of Members of Parliament. These two factors alone make the time appropriate for review. I would join with those who have advised hon. Members not to treat with too much respect the observations of the Government Actuary. I think that he has completely lost sight of a vast number of imponderables, such as the electoral casualties, how many of these casualties will be 60 years of age, and how many of them will have had 10

years' service. I note that in this connection the report of the Government Actuary on 31st March, 1944, contained the surprising information that of those Members sitting in the House at that time, 66 had not disclosed their age—and we did not have many lady Members at that time, That is an additional imponderable, and it shows how badly off for information have been those engaged upon these calculations.
I believe that as the years go by there will be fewer and fewer Members, on whichever side of the House they sit, who will be men of sufficient private means to be able to disinterest themselves in an arrangement of this sort. The financial circumstances under which we live today, the weight of taxation and so on, make it very difficult for a young married man with a small family to burn his financial boats, and to come here, with all the electoral risks he will have to take, knowing that when his Parliamentary career is over, he may have little or nothing to fall back on by way of earning a livelihood. That has been the exception in recent years, but as we go on there will be more and more men of the type we want to see in the House of Commons, that is men in their 30's, who will find these factors preying upon them when they are invited to stand for this House. For that reason, it is of great importance that we should re-examine the whole of this question.
I confess that I find myself in considerable agreement with the view put forward to the Select Committee by the Patronage Secretary on page 15 of their Report. That is the sort of thing we shall have to arrange in the years ahead, but in the meantime we are discussing the fund as it exists today. I am not in agreement with the view of some of my hon. Friends, whose attitude towards this matter is based largely on the fact that they are unlikely to draw anything out of the fund. I think that my noble Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord William Scott) expressed views not dissimilar to that, when he gave evidence before the Select Committee. With great respect, I would put two or three considerations before those who have expressed this opinion.
It is not in the spirit of a benevolent fund to look upon it from the point of view of what one will get out of it. A


benevolent fund exists for the purpose of helping those who happen to fall by the wayside. On the Stock Exchange, for instance, we have a benevolent fund; and most of us would be sorry indeed if we were in circumstances that induced us to draw on it. There are many insurances of the same type. I hope I shall never have to draw on my insurance company because my house is burgled or burnt to the ground; but I pay premiums as a precaution against those calamities. There was the war damage insurance we paid during the war. Those of us who were spared having our homes damaged by bombs were delighted—particularly now that we see the delays in making the payments. One pays into these funds not from the point of view of what one is to get out again, but because the funds are a mutual effort to sustain those who may find themselves in difficult circumstances.
There is one aspect of this matter about which I am unhappy, and do not agree with the Select Committee. I do not think that the suggestion made for the support of the widows of hon. Members is at all satisfactory. I think that for the most part it is a rather miserable kind of set-up. The wives of active Members of Parliament for something like five-sixths of the year live in circumstances so nearly akin to widowhood as to be almost indistinguishable from it. That is not a facetious remark: it is a statement of fact. We come here and have the life of the House of Commons; we have enjoyable friendships, and, indeed we have agreeable differences of opinion. They all go to make up the life of a Member of Parliament. His wife, however, for the greater part of the year lives a sort of widowhood, and she really does make no small contribution to the public life of this country—she who sits at home and waits, until the small hours, so often, of the mornings. I do feel that those who are in those circumstances should receive rather special consideration when we are examining this question and adjusting our ideas.
It is not a party question, and I hope it will not be treated as such. Matrimony covers both sides of the House. I do feel that this is a rather particular problem. Some of our wives married us well knowing what they were letting themselves in for—when we were already here. But I

wonder if some of the ladies who are married to hon. Members of this House, if they could have gazed into a crystal and seen what their domestic lives were to be like down the years, would have been lured to the altar at all—at least, by the gentlemen who took them—because their home life is destroyed.

Dr. Morgan: What about the husbands of lady Members of Parliament?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: There is a difference. It is not quite the same for the husbands of lady Members. I am not going to take up time discussing that point. I do think that the provision made here for the widows of Members—£225 a year—with the cost of living as it is, is really a rather miserable little sum, and I hope that the House in future will look in future to that particular aspect of the matter.
I am here to support the hon. Member for West Willesden in the Motion he has placed before us. I believe that, as things are, we should support the Report of the Select Committee, but regard it as an interim one. The whole thing ought to be re-examined, and I hope that legislation will be brought in that will put the matter on a different basis. It is not a very creditable thing for the country that a man who has spent himself in its public affairs ends his days in circumstances hardly different from penury. It is less creditable that the wife who has supported and sustained him through that public life should be left in similar conditions.

9.35 P.m.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): As a Member of the Select Committee, I should like to say a word or two on the Motion before the House, and offer a word of criticism on the Government Actuary's Report, which arrived after the Report of the Select Committee was issued. It appears that the Government Actuary thought in terms of arrivals and non-departures, but everybody eventually arrives at the fund stage. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) has departed, because quite frankly I want to say that many of the things he said had better have been left unsaid. He hinted that the origin of this fund was in the debacle of the Labour Party in 1931, but it says much for the speed of movement in this


House that it was 1939 before anything was done about it. Historically, I think he is all wrong. It is bad to create the impression that this fund had its origin in the poverty of Members of the Labour Party, and it is not true.
I had not attended many sittings of the Select Committee before I realised that much of the written evidence was outside our terms of reference. Some of the more experienced Members of this House, quite legitimately, sent in long detailed statements, and those who consult the Committee's Report will find that the examination of those statements was of a most cursory manner, because the Members of the Committee realised that their terms of reference did not permit discussion of something which would require new legislation, for that is what it amounted to.
If an examination is made of the Report, hon. Members will find that on every third or fourth page it is shown that the fund, in its origin, had no actuarial basis at all. If I might express a hope, it is that it never will have, because the moment a benevolent fund like this is confined within the narrow confines of an actuarial basis, the elasticity, which is absolutely necessary for its administration, goes by the board. My reason for taking part in this discussion tonight is to impress upon the House the necessity of having something done now. The Report should be adopted. It does not prevent lion Members, if they desire to go into the question at large, from doing so, but I am satisfied that there are beneficiaries, and those who will become beneficiaries, living in very straitened circumstances at the moment, for whom nothing can be done until such time as these revised scales have been adopted by this House. Before concluding, I should like to express the hope that the cost of this Government Actuary's Report will not become a charge on the fund. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not here, but perhaps the Home Secretary can answer that question.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I do not think they will pay for it.

Mr. McKinlay: It was wholly unauthorised by the trustees. If I know anything of this House, 70 per cent. of the membership will never qualify for two-pence out of the fund. They will be denied

it because they have already made provision for themselves, or because their career will be so chequered. I say to the up-and-coming Front Benchers that if they always keep that in their minds, they will develop that modesty which is so essential. We are here today and gone tomorrow. I spent 10 years outside when I left this House in 1931. I well remember the Prime Minister asking me how it felt to be back again after 10 years. I said that it seemed like yesterday because the same people were talking when I came back as were talking when I departed. The fact remains that 10 years is a considerable portion of a person's political life. To hon. Members who lose their seats at the next General Election, it is a certainty that they will have a gap of at least four years. I want the general public to get it into their minds that this is a benevolent act voluntarily undertaken by hon. Members. The money is paid out of their own pockets; there is no contribution from any outside source.
An hon. Member drew attention to the fact that the Committee laid it down that when an hon. Member left this Chamber for another place, he forfeited any right to a claim on the fund. One could say quite facetiously that it served him right for leaving the House of Commons. A certain dignity has to be maintained in another place, and if the peers have indigent peers in their ranks, surely they are in a position to set up a fund similar to this to help, as it were, their rank and file? I hope the House will accept the Select Committee's Report. Should the Government or hon. Members desire this matter to be further explored, let them appoint a Select Committee with wider terms of reference to examine the whole matter.

9.43 P.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and the hon. Member Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) drew the attention of the House and the public to the fact that this is not a pension. There is no doubt that a very considerable body of people believe that Members of Parliament receive a pension. It ought to be made quite clear that we are only helping those who are destitute and that this is purely a benevolent fund. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire said that certain hon.


Members had desired to bring before the Committee some aspects of the fund which the terms of reference precluded the Committee from considering. That was unfortunate. I have had the honour of being a trustee of this fund since the commencement. I opposed the Bill in 1939, but after six months on the Committee, I became fully convinced that the Bill was justified and that the fund met a very definite need. I have been very much impressed throughout the years by the fact that such a considerable number of hon. Members are as destitute as they are when they leave the House.
I endorse what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite), and I hope the time will come when the House will review this subject on a much wider basis. I support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew) and the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant).
I hope the Government will accept this Motion, I am quite sure that there can be no controversy in any part of the House about it. I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that this fund does not meet the situation of a large number of hon. Members today. It has within it an objectionable feature in this means test. Some of us will have read the letter in "The Times" of yesterday by a very old and distinguished Member of this House, Mr. J. R. Clynes. I think some of the statements he makes in that letter go rather further than I would go, but I agree with the point he makes at the end of his letter, that to subject ex-Members of Parliament, some of them men of distinction, to a means test is not justified on the basis of our conception of public life and what sacrifices it entails on a Member of this House. From my eight years as one of the trustees, and having talked over this matter with quite a number of Members who come to me from time to time, I would say that this fund, even under the new suggestion, does not meet the needs of those Members of the House who ought to participate in it.

9.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told the House earlier in the

Debate, this matter is left to the decision of the House. The hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) asked me if the Government would accept the Motion. This is not the kind of Motion which the Government can either accept or reject; it is a matter for the House as a whole. No pressure will be put on anybody by the Government to vote one way or the other, and whatever happens on the Motion will be regarded by the Government in the light of the speeches that have been made in the course of the Debate, because quite obviously the Motion is in such terms that it will have to be read in the light of the discussion which took place when it was before the House.
I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) is not in his place at the moment, because I got a surprising confirmation from him with regard to one of the major matters discussed since my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary sat down. He said that actuaries based themselves on absolute certainties. That confirms my view of them, that they are really only respectable bookmakers. All the bookmakers with whom I have had dealings in the course of my experience seem to have based their transactions and prophecies of future events on the theory that everything I fancied must be an absolute certainty, no matter how disastrous the speculation might prove in the course of a few minutes after my investment with them.
The Government would not overstress the findings of the Government Actuary in this matter, but I think it was due to the House that this actuarial calculation and these actuarial comments should be made, and should be placed at the disposal of the House. I rather suspect that if the Government Actuary had not been called in there would have been suggestions this evening that, before we committed ourselves one way or the other to the recommendations of the Select Committee, we should know what some actuary or other thought of them. We have, therefore, placed that information at the disposal of the House. We have listened to what right hon. and hon. Members have had to say about the precise degree to which an actuarial calculation can be made of a fund of this size, in the first place because, as a rule actuaries like to have a very wide field on which to base their calculations and not a fund which at no


time can cater for more than 640, or just over 600, contributors. For what it is worth, the Actuary's opinion has been placed before the House, and we will give due consideration to the criticisms which have been made of it by hon. Members.
It is said that a great deal of the evidence submitted to the Committee was outside the terms of reference and in consequence could not be commented on effectively by the Committee when they had to present their Report to the House. We shall, of course, bear in mind what has been said this evening about the desire for the widest possible reconsideration of the original Act, and see what can be done to give the House, at an appropriate time, an opportunity for considering the whole basis of the matter. I am in the position of most hon. Members who have spoken. My only chance of benefiting from the fund is if the Prudential Insurance Company goes bankrupt. That is one reason why I should have some regard for the remaining fabric of the capitalist structure. I would have thought the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) would have rather welcomed the fact that I have so close an interest in the matter.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I do.

Mr. Ede: I am like many hon. Members, in 1939 and tonight, who regard this as a matter from which we are unlikely to get any personal benefit. Just as various schools have benefit funds by which past pupils are helped when they fall on needy times, and there are similar voluntary organisations where people are brought into close and intimate association and make similar arrangements, I imagine most of us have felt, since the fund was inaugurated, that this enables us to make a moderate contribution to ensure that the worst evils of poverty—it is little more than that—shall not fall on ex-Members or the widows of ex-Members.
I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to the trustees for the way in which the secrets of the fund have been kept. It was an astonishment to me to be approached by two former colleagues of the House who are very close personal friends. They told me that they had been beneficiaries of the Fund for a certain time. I had never heard a whisper in any corner of the House that these two or any other Members had benefited,

and apart from those two, although I hope that I am a fairly active Member of the House, in close contact with Members of all parties, I do not know the name of any other individual who has at any time benefited from this fund, or whose widow has benefited from it. It is a tribute that should be paid to the trustees that they have managed to conduct these delicate matters in such a way that that information has not been available.
One of the hon. Members who spoke to me has, I suppose through some improvement in his circumstances, just risen above the financial level which enables him to benefit from the fund, and the other gentleman had, I imagine through some lesser improvement, suffered a reduction in the sum allowed to him. The chairman of the fund may, from these particulars, be able to identify the Members, but I am quite sure that, apart from the trustees of the fund, no one else could identify those two Members by the information that I have given. What I have just said lends point to what was said by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). It may be desirable, especially in view of the changed value of the limits which were fixed in 1939, that alterations should now be made which will prevent hon. Members who have been in benefit in the past from being removed from benefit at a time when, possibly, their actual circumstances, having regard to the current condition of affairs, entitle them more to consideration than perhaps they were entitled to when they were first made beneficiaries.
There is only one thing I should like to say by way of caution, especially to those who advocate any substantial reduction in the contributions which are paid. I am quite sure that while a person's circumstances remain the same as they were when he was granted a benefit from the fund, that benefit should not be reduced. While the £55,000 remains, that is unlikely, but if we cut our coat too closely according to the cloth we have available, we might be faced with some difficulties of that kind in the future. I desire to assure the House that if the Motion is passed in the terms in which it has been moved, if that is the will of the House—and we neither ask the House to do it or abstain from doing it—the Government will take the Motion


into their serious consideration in the light of the speeches which have been made in its support this evening.

9.58 p.m.

Captain Marsden: I would like to ask the House to bear in mind how this matter first started. It was really through the then Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who, under a rather cold exterior, had a very warm heart indeed. But for him, this Act would have never have gone through at that time. Let hon. Members remember how, in spite of long years of Tory misrule, this measure benefited the Members of this House.

9.59 p.m.

Lord William Scott: There are one or two points which I should like to be taken into consideration. When this fund was originally started, there was a general belief that the reason why no tax exemption was allowed in this particular case, although it was allowed in the case of nearly everything else that a Member of Parliament compulsorily had to pay, was some possibly ill-chosen words which had been spoken by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. The question ought to be examined whether there is any special reason why this levy should not be free from tax when other less serious contributions which Members must make can be taken into consideration.
We talk about this fund as a benevolent fund. That is what it is, and what it was intended to be. Those who do not hope to benefit from it did hope that it would enable them to be assured that those for whom they care would be looked after by it. I was particularly interested in the case of a lady—I had never actually met her—who was the widow of one of the oldest and most respected Members of this House. We heard that she had been left very badly off and that it was likely that she would get assistance from this fund. It was then discovered that her circumstances placed her just over the limit. If not all, then a great number of Members on this side of the House were then called upon to make a further contribution to enable her to pass over a difficult period. This benevolent fund is not serving the purpose that we were entitled to believe it would serve

if we are called upon to give further contributions to those who are in an unfortunate position. I hope that that aspect will be considered when consideration is given to the question of the benefits and how the different classes will be affected.

Resolved:
That, in the opinion of this House the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, should be amended in order to extend its scope and to provide for increased payments and altered contributions.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS

10.3 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move:
That the Order of Reference [23rd October] to the Select Committee be amended in line 3, by inserting after '1893),' the words 'or Statutory Instrument,' and by inserting after the word 'Order,' the word 'Instrument.'
There are three Motions on the Order Paper tonight in the names of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and myself. All relate to the same matter. They are highly technical and, I believe, non-controversial. Perhaps it would be convenient if I explained what each provides for. The first two are designed to extend the terms of reference of the Scrutiny Committee. They are made necessary by the fact that the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, will come into operation on 1st January next. The first Motion extends the terms of reference to enable the Scrutiny Committee to take into consideration Statutory Instruments. The second extends it by enabling the Scrutiny Committee to take into consideration notifications which you, Mr. Speaker, lay on the Table of the House when an instrument is made to come into operation before it is laid. The third makes a slight Amendment to the new Standing Order No. 94, which this House adopted on 5th November, by limiting the Statutory Instruments to which it applies to those which, under Section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, have to be laid before they come into operation.

Resolved:
That the Order of Reference [23rd October] to the Select Committee be amended in line 3, by inserting after '1893),' the words


'or Statutory Instrument,' and by inserting after the word 'Order,' the word 'Instrument.'

Resolved:
That the Select Committee have power to consider any notification which, having been sent to Mr. Speaker under the proviso to subsection (1) of Section four of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, has been laid by him upon the Table of the House."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Orders of the Day — PRESENTATION OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Standing Order No. 94, read, and amended at the end by adding the words:
Provided that nothing in this Order shall apply to any Statutory Instrument being an Order which is subject to special Parliamentary procedure or to any other instrument which is required to be laid before Parliament, or before this House for any period before it comes into operation."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Orders of the Day — HYBRID BILLS (PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEE)

Select Committee appointed to consider the procedure in Select Committees on Public Bills to which the Standing Orders relative to Private Business apply and to report whether any and if so what rules should be laid down to regulate their proceedings.

Mr. Benson, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. McLeavy, Mr. Hopkin Morris, Mr. Granville Sharp, Mr. Sparks and Mr. William Wells to be Members of the Committee:

Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Draft of the Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power, under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Manchester, which was presented on 28th November and published, be approved.—[Mr. Robens.]

Mr. Erroll: May we have a brief word of explanation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): This order is necessary because the Man-

chester Corporation, who are responsible for the gas undertaking, require to carry out extensive additions to their plant and to the undertaking generally because of the increased consumption of gas in Manchester. They require to borrow £1,082,365 and this order is presented so that they should have the authority of this House to do so.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Draft of the Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power, under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the Burgh of Johnstone, which was presented on 12th November and published, be approved."—[Mr. Robens.]

Mr. Raikes: May we have a word of explanation on this order?

Mr. Robens: This is in respect of an undertaking which requires an extension of its operations to the two adjoining parishes of Beath and Kilbirnie. Negotiations are taking place now in connection with the transfer of certain undertakings at these two places, and they are going satisfactorily. As a consequence, this Order is presented so that this may be done and the Minister has seen and has approved the scheme in accordance with the terms of the Order.

NUTS (PRICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Dodds: The season of goodwill towards men is fast approaching, but, in considering the actions of the Minister of Food in respect of edible nuts. I must confess that I can find none of that desirable spirit. In fact, there are few things that have made me feel more angry than the stewardship of the Minister in respect of nuts. I am fully supported by the workers for the Labour and Cooperative movements in the Dartford constituency, and they have informed me that, if only the Minister could be made aware of the widespread anger and distrust so forcibly expressed in factory and


office and among the housewives, he would be convinced that he had made a blunder of some magnitude. All of us wish to pay tribute to the Minister, and to the staff of the Ministry of Food, for the excellent work they have done in recent years, and it is because of this that we are so utterly amazed at the actions of the Minister in respect of edible nuts.
As I understand it, the Ministry of Food have been, with very rare exceptions, the sole importers of edible nuts. The Edible Nuts Executive Panel was set up at the request of the Ministry of Food, and the object of this body, as I understand it, was to handle the distribution of nuts to the public. It has been brought to my notice that at Christmas, 1944, there were 6,000 tons of nuts available for distribution, and the job of distributing them was given to this organisation at very short notice. I am informed that the job was done very satisfactorily, and, furthermore, that the prices were a lot lower than they are this season.
A maximum prices order, for both nut kernels and nuts in shell, existed from 1941 to 27th July this year. During 1946, and subsequently, the Ministry of Food have bought small parcels of nuts, and it was estimated that the nuts recently available amounted to no more than two ounces per head of the population. It seems to me that, for this reason, the Minister decided that the nuts should go to free auction. I would like to remind him that he seems to have overlooked the fact that in many of the poorer households throughout the length and breadth of the land, and particularly in the North of England and the Midlands, there is a custom which is very dear to the people, the hanging up of the children's stockings at Christmas. In connection with this custom, it is usual to put in an apple, an orange, some new pennies, and just a few nuts. The action of the Minister has robbed most of these households of the opportunity to follow that very popular and long-honoured custom.
I think it is very appropriate that I should bring this matter to the Minister's notice on a day when we have been discussing in this House the question of giving tens of thousands of pounds to one individual. It may be that many are not offended about this, but it is just as well

to remember that there are people at the other end of the scale who would like to be considered in this particular matter. The stocks of nuts were released to free auction without control at any stage, and it is certainly not to the credit of the Minister that even higher prices were not realised. In fact, his motto in this particular case seems to have been, "The sky is the limit." Of course, to many Socialists, that is a matter of great surprise. For my part I hope that the commonsense of the people will be such that they will refuse to buy these nuts, and that the collaborators of the Minister, at least, will burn their fingers, and that this will serve as a very useful example for future years.
I understand that, for many months, the Edible Nuts Executive Panel have consistently urged that they should be given the job of distributing the nuts. A letter has come to me today in which it says that, in 1944, the fresh fruit trade was given the job of distributing nuts. I think that the following paragraph is important:
With regard to the recent disposal of stocks, the Ministry did not consult the fresh fruit trade, although it is possible that it might be inferred from Answers to a recent Question that the trade was consulted. It it definitely stated that the national organisation of the fresh fruit trade was not at any time approached.
In view of the prices at which they were purchased—from 9d. to 1s. 4d. a lb.—the Edible Nuts Executive Panel suggested that there should be a controlled price of 2s. 6d. a lb., but in the absence of a price control order it was felt that by their influence, plus the influence of the Press and radio, it would be possible to get nuts at 2s. 6d. per lb. No one denies that if they had been so distributed some would have gone to the black market, and some under the counter, but, as a representative of the Co-operative movement, I can claim that those which would have come to the movement would have been sold at the controlled price.
I believe the sales amounted to £1,750,000 and the maximum profit to £1,250,000. As we have heard, in answer to a Question in the House today, that profit was at the rate of 237 per cent. We feel that even if the Minister had no faith in the Panel, there is still no justification for the action he has taken. We


feel that they could have been zoned. There could have been a compensation issue to other areas denied supplies, or they could have been given to children on the green ration books. They could also have been given at a date and time to be announced when it would have been a question of "first come, first served."
In this House recently a suggestion was made about increasing the price of petrol so that there would be a diminution of purchases, and it was said that if the price was 5s. or 6s. a gallon, there would be less petrol sold. There has been a suggestion also of a further increase in the price of tobacco. We have resisted that because it would have been rationing by price. Therefore, it makes it all the more difficult to understand the action which the Minister has taken in this particular Order. It has been suggested that there was no time to get a Price Control Order in operation. There has been plenty of time, I maintain, to have done so if it had been wanted. If that is true the Minister has certainly "missed the bus."
An unsatisfactory situation has now been created because there is a controlled price order for nut kernels but none for nuts in shells. Nuts in shells are two or three times the price of nut kernels, and when it is known that there are only one-third of the nuts available in shells, it shows what a ridiculous situation we are in. It is felt that when people abroad are taking careful note of the prices that are being paid, it will react against us if we can again buy nut kernels. Another unsatisfactory aspect is that the home variety of nuts has been affected. Cob nuts are being sold at 7s. a lb., which will have a further bad reaction on the situation. I want to make it clear that in making this protest, I do so, not only on behalf of the people of the Dartford constituency, but for the Co-operative movement and for the Co-operative Parliamentary group in this House. We wish to protest at the decision of the Minister, which has resulted in high prices both for imported and for the home variety of nuts, and which places them beyond the reach of consumers of average means.
We feel also that this action has exposed the Ministry of Food to a justifiable charge of profiteering, with the resultant loss of its moral right to criticise or condemn profiteering elsewhere. The

action of the Minister is another example of rationing by price, and I make this protest because I believe it is contrary to the declared policy of the Labour movement. We sincerely hope that this will serve as a warning, and that the Minister of Food will not again copy one of the worst examples of private enterprise.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Norman Bower: The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) has done well to draw attention to the high prices at which these edible nuts are now being retailed. One of the reasons which the Minister of Food gave for putting them up to auction was that the Edible Nuts Executive Panel had asked that they should be given the sole distribution of these nuts, to the exclusion of all newcomers into the trade. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if, when she replies, she can give any evidence in support of that assertion, because I am credibly informed that that is completely without any foundation at all and that, in fact, the trade said that of any further imports a definite tonnage should be set aside specifically for new importers who had recently entered the trade, and that so far as the actual distribution of these particular stocks were concerned they were never given any opportunity of seeing the Minister and discussing with him the method by which they should be distributed.
I do not think that hon. Lady, or anyone connected with the Ministry, will deny that the Edible Nuts Executive Panel is a thoroughly reputable organisation which has been responsible for distributing about £15 million worth of nuts very successfully in the past. That being the case, I submit that they should have been given the chance to put their scheme to which the hon. Member for Dartford has referred into operation before the Minister decided on a course which was certain to result, as it has resulted, in these nuts being retailed at grossly exorbitant prices which can only be paid by the wealthiest members of the community. What the Minister has done in this case is exactly what he and his hon. Friends have for many years been accusing private enterprise of doing, namely, cornering a commodity and selling it at monopoly prices and exploiting the consumers.
As the hon. Member has already said, the Parliamentary Secretary gave the most astounding figures at Question time today when she announced that the profit which the Ministry had made from these nuts was 237 per cent. I submit without the slightest fear of contradiction that if any private concern or organisation had made a profit of those dimensions, they would have been howled at by everybody and called profiteering thugs and every name under the sun. That only goes to show that all this Socialist talk about fair shares for all at reasonable prices is so much eyewash and balderdash. In fact, the whole of this episode has been a scandal and an outrage from start to finish.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Tiffany: It is with regret that I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) in this matter of edible nuts, because in the past we have had so much confidence in the activities of the Ministry of Food. There is no doubt that the work of the Ministry of Food has been of great benefit to the people in this country. Therefore, when we find a situation such as this it stands out against all the good work that has been done in the past.
I understand that the Edible Nuts Executive Panel was set up under the direction of the Ministry of Food itself, for the purpose of ensuring an even distribution of nuts. I also understand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has stated, that they were prepared to ensure that the nuts were distributed at a price of aproximately 2s. 6d. a lb. It is true that there would, perhaps, be one or two small discrepancies—there might be a little black market—but, in general, so far as possible, they gave a guarantee that they would have been prepared to ensure that the nuts were distributed at a retail price of 2s. 6d. a lb. I am rather worried by the fact that, having set up this machinery during the war, the Ministry of Food at the last moment refused to accept the machinery.
It seems rather a peculiar thing to me for the Ministry to operate. Furthermore, we have the situation which has already been mentioned, and which I should like to emphasise, that there is an order still in operation restricting and setting out the maximum prices with relation to shelled nuts, and yet, according to the Ministry, it was not possible to

put in an Order restricting the prices with relation to nuts in shells. If it was considered necessary that the Order should continue for shelled nuts, surely the same argument would hold with relation to nuts which have not been shelled. I also want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend on this question of profiteering.
We have always looked upon the Ministry of Food as defending the consumers of our country against profiteering, yet here we have the Ministry of Food itself willy nilly going into this very market of profiteering. I think it is very lamentable indeed, in view of the very high standard occupied by the Ministry in the past and the very high regard with which it is held by the huge majority of people in this country. There has been a lowering of that standard through the Ministry of Food selling these nuts by auction. I sincerely hope that the points brought forward by the hon. Member for Dartford will register upon the Ministry of Food and that we shall not have further actions of this type. I think they do discredit to the Ministry.

10.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I think from what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany) has just said about the high standing of the Ministry of Food in this country, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) must surely recognise that the circumstances with which we were faced when we had to dispose of these nuts were indeed exceptional. I find it very curious that they should come to this House and condemn us in this way without a fair hearing, in view of what has already been said. They know, as Co-operative Members, that our policy in the past has always been "no profit and no loss." In view of that, surely they must have realised that we did not overnight decide to change our policy, to enter into competition with private enterprise and endeavour deliberately to make a higher percentage of profit than private enterprise. Of course, we did not. We were faced with exceptional circumstances and I feel my hon. Friends on this side of the House should certainly have come and made fuller inquiries than they have done before publicly condemning my Department in this way.
The circumstances were indeed exceptional. We found ourselves holding a comparatively small stock of nuts which, if distributed equitably throughout the country, would amount to two ounces per head. We had to decide how we were to dispose of them. I do not want to weary the House with the details, but I should remind them of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and later the Minister for Economic Affairs said to this House about decreasing imports. Hon. Members on this side of the House know full well that we had to cancel the import of nuts at very short notice. Therefore, the Ministry found they had a stock of 3,000-odd tons of nuts and had to decide how best to dispose of them. I admit that our purpose in holding them in the past was in order to ensure that private enterprise, when it came to sell nuts which would have been imported, would not have enjoyed too high profits, and to ease the shift to the trade. All those plans, of course, did not materialise because imports ceased, and we had to decide how best to dispose of the nuts.
We were faced with three choices—(1) to impose price control at all stages of sale; (2) to sell under a gentleman's agreement, through the Edible Nuts Executive Panel, with first hand distributors and wholesalers; and (3) to sell by public auction. The Government would have preferred to have distributed under price control, and I am very surprised that the hon. Member for Dartford, who knows something of Co-operative trading, dismissed so lightly the procedure which we would have to adopt if we had decided to price-control these nuts at every stage.
He knows the time it takes to discuss margins, to arrive at agreement with the trade, and he knows that during that period the nuts would have deteriorated. He knows about the sorting and bagging that would have been necessary, and, to take all that into consideration, would have meant that the people of this country, instead of eating nuts at Christmas, might have got them in January or February. The final factor is the reason we adopted what, in our opinion, was the best method. If these nuts had been distributed in January, the whole House would have said, "The Ministry of Food again—too late." They would have been justified. The people of this country do not want to get nuts at the end of

January. They want them at Christmas over their fires. So we dismissed that.
The second method is that which the hon. Member for Dartford advocates. I was very surprised to hear that he is such a great friend of that monopoly, the Edible Nuts Executive Panel. My hon. Friend spoke in very praising terms of this Panel. They suggested that we should have what they call a "gentlemen's agreement." The gentlemen's agreement would have meant that the Edible Nuts Panel would have tried by exhortation to induce every link in the chain of distribution to sell the nuts at a particular price.
With due respect to the very fine retailers throughout the country, and with due respect to the Co-operative movement—and I think the Co-operative movement know full well that the Ministry of Food have always co-operated with them as they should do—hon. Members will agree with me that we could not, as a responsible Department, rely upon every little retailer at every corner throughout the country accepting a gentleman's agreement. You may exhort your wholesalers, you may talk to your first-hand distributors, but I do not think that you could rely on every retailer to sell those nuts at the price which had been laid down. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford reminded me that at Christmas, 1944, nuts were sold at a certain price. He should remember that then there were more nuts. We are talking now about two ounces of nuts per head.

Mr. Dodds: Six thousand tons.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member knows that when there is a shortage of any commodity, the price will rise. Because of all these difficulties with which we were faced, we felt that we could not accept what the Edible Nuts Panel wanted—to adopt the gentlemen's agreement method. We have been on very pleasant terms with the Edible Nuts Executive Panel and we thank it for what it has done, but I must remind my hon. Friends that the Panel was formed in 1941 and consists of ten prewar importers and first-hand distributors' associations.
I must tell the House, after what has been said, that this panel was very anxious to have a closed shop. It was very anxious that new people should not come in, and, in fact, it asked my Department to see that later on people who had been concerned in dealing with nuts


should more or less maintain that monopoly. My Department said that this must not be. If nuts were available, then everyone in the country wishing to deal in nuts should have the opportunity of getting them. I think that probably the Edible Nuts Executive Panel did not feel friendly disposed towards the Ministry because of this attitude, and perhaps that is why hon. Members have been briefed in this fashion.

Mr. Dodds: It is not in Order to make assertions of that nature. They did not brief me, and I would like to deny that statement here and now. If the hon. Lady has any evidence, she ought to mention it.

Dr. Summerskill: When my hon. Friend gets up with a sheaf of papers in his hand and quotes from them, and from the Edible Nuts Panel, I think it is fair for me to tell him why the Edible Nuts Panel has adopted this particular attitude. I am telling him what he should have known, and what he would have known if he had come and spoken to me for a moment or two behind Mr. Speaker's chair.

Mr. Dodds: I know all that the hon. Lady has told me, but I still feel the way I do, and so do the Co-operatives.

Dr. Summerskill: We had to look at this from every angle, and we decided that, in the circumstances, everybody who wished to do so could come to the auction and bid for the available nuts. We have no evidence that there was any cornering of supplies. We were told that all the buyers represented well-known firms. The buyers congratulated us on the fair way in which the auction was conducted. In my opinion, after careful reflection, I think that that was the best method in the circumstances.

Mr. Erroll: May I say that we on this side of the House have been occasioned great pain by the public whipping of the delegates from the Co-operatives, who have been among the biggest buyers of these nuts. We are surprised that the Minister has fallen into the trap over nuts, in view of his unhappy experience with pineapples, which rocketed in price.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.